title: Case T-86/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/38

         Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-86/09)
   2009/C 113/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender MARE/2008/01 for the ‘Provision of computer and related services, including the maintenance and development of DG MARE information systems’ (1) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 12 December 2008 and all further related decisions including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 520 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender MARE/2008/01 for the ‘Provision of computer and related services, including the maintenance and development of DG MARE information systems’ and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages on account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the defendant infringed the principle of equal treatment as it failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation (2) regarding one member of the winning consortium and it discriminated against the applicant by not offering it access to all the available technical documentation and the source code which was only available to the incumbent contractor. The applicant further considers that the weighting ration for the application of the award criterion of the ‘most economically advantageous offer’ practically neutralised the impact of the effect of the price in breach of the provisions of the financial regulation. Moreover, the applicant claims that the defendant based the evaluation of its offer on different criteria than those presented in the tender specifications, thus infringing the obligation of transparency.
   Second, the applicant contends that the defendant failed to provide sufficient motivation of its decision in particular regarding quality criteria 2 and 3 in violation of the principle of transparency.
   Third, the applicant raises doubts as to the fact that the members of the evaluation committee acted despite being in conflict of interests and therefore in violation of a procedural requirement.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the defendant committed several manifest errors and misused its power of assessment.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 115-152936

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1)


title: Case C-373/05 P: Order of the Court of 22 January 2007 — Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 — Previous complaint — Identity of subject-matter and legal basis — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Order of the Court of 22 January 2007 — Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Case C-373/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 - Previous complaint - Identity of subject-matter and legal basis - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 82/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to promote the appellant to the post of translator-reviser (LA 5) in the 2003 promotion exercise
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case C-336/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on 16 July 2012 — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on 16 July 2012 — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S
   (Case C-336/12)
   2012/C 287/47
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser

      Defendant: Manova A/S

      Question referred

   Does the EU law principle of equal treatment mean that a contracting authority, following expiry of the time-limit for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, may not obtain information required in the call for tenders concerning a tenderer’s most recent published balance sheet, when the tenderer in question did not provide such a balance sheet in its application for pre-qualification?


title: Case C-338/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/12

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-338/06)
   (2006/C 261/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly Council Directive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, and in particular:

                           (1)

                           Article 42, read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (4), by allowing the general meeting of shareholders to approve the issue of new shares without pre-emptive subscription rights, at a price below their fair value;

                           (2)

                           Article 29(1), by granting the right to pre-emptive subscription of shares in the event of a capital increase by consideration in cash, not only to shareholders, but also to holders of bonds convertible into shares;

                           (3)

                           Article 29(6), read in conjunction with Article 29(1), by granting the right to pre-emptive subscription rights for bonds convertible into shares not only to shareholders, but also to the holders of bonds convertible into shares pertaining to earlier issues;

                           (4)

                           Article 29(6), read in conjunction with Article 29(4), by failing to provide that the shareholders' meeting may decide to exclude pre-emptive subscription rights for bonds convertible into shares.

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that Articles 158, 159 and 293 of Royal Legislative Decree 1564/1989 of 22 December 1989 approving the amended text of the Law on companies (‘LSA’) incorrectly transpose Directive 77/91/EEC on the following grounds:

               (1)

               The second subparagraph of Article 159(1)(c) of the LSA is contrary to Article 42, read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (4), of Directive 77/91/EEC, in that it permits the shareholders' meeting to decide to issue new shares without pre-emptive subscription rights at a price below their market value;

               (2)

               Article 158(1) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(1) of Directive 77/91/EEC, in that it grants the right to pre-emptive subscription for shares in the event of capital increase by consideration in cash not only to shareholders, but also to holders of bonds convertible into shares;

               (3)

               Article 158(1) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(6) of Directive 77/91/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 29(1), in that it grants the right to pre-emptive subscription for bonds convertible into shares not only to shareholders, but also to the holders of bonds convertible into shares pertaining to earlier issues;

               (4)

               Article 293(2) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(6) of Directive 77/91/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 29(4), in that it fails to provide that the shareholders' meeting may decide to exclude the right to pre-emptive subscription for bonds convertible into shares.

      (1)  OJ L 26 of 31. 1. 1977, p. 1


title: Case F-50/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Rule of correspondence between request, complaint and action regarding compensation — Inter partes nature of proceedings — Use in judicial proceedings of a confidential document classified as ‘EU restricted’ — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Liability for fault — Causal link — Plurality of causes of damage — Third party fault — Strict liability — Duty to provide assistance — Obligation on an institution to ensure the protection of its staff — Murder of an official and his spouse by a third party — Loss of a chance of survival)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission
   (Case F-50/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Rule of correspondence between request, complaint and action regarding compensation - Inter partes nature of proceedings - Use in judicial proceedings of a confidential document classified as ‘EU restricted’ - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Liability for fault - Causal link - Plurality of causes of damage - Third party fault - Strict liability - Duty to provide assistance - Obligation on an institution to ensure the protection of its staff - Murder of an official and his spouse by a third party - Loss of a chance of survival)
   2011/C 232/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Kerkhove-Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini and N. Sibona, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro, B. Eggers and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for an order that the defendant pay a sum by way of reparation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant by reason of the murder of his son, a former official.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the extracts from the 2006 document on security standards and criteria, sent by the European Commission to the Tribunal in the course of proceedings, to be returned immediately to the European Commission in an envelope marked “confidential” and ‘classified restricted EU’.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009, p. 27.


title: Case F-84/09: Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Larue and Seigneur v European Central Bank

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/44

         Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Larue and Seigneur v European Central Bank
   (Case F-84/09)
   2009/C 312/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicants’ pay slips for January 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the pay slip for January 2009;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the decisions, dated 20 April 2009 and 6 August 2009 respectively, rejecting the applicants’ requests for re-consideration and the complaints submitted by them;

               —

               by way of measures of organisation of procedure, call upon the defendant to produce its administrative file and, at very least, the documents originating from DG-H which were submitted to the Executive Board concerning the General Salary Adjustment (GSA) for 2009, the Executive Board's proposal for GSA for 2009, the documents originating from DG-H which were submitted to the Governing Council concerning the GSA for 2009 and the decision of the Governing Council concerning the GSA for 2009;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by applicants consisting of EUR 5 000 for each applicant to compensate them for their loss of purchasing power since 1 January 2009 and of arrears of salary corresponding to a 1.5 % pay increase from 1 January 2009, with interest on the latter from the date at which they fall due until the date of payment. The rate of interest should be two points higher than the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations which was applicable during the period in question;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-152/14: Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Medilab v Commission and ECB

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/32

         Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Medilab v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-152/14)
   2014/C 159/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Medilab Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.


title: Case T-331/12: Action brought on 27 July 2012 — Sartorius Weighing Technology v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/34

         Action brought on 27 July 2012 — Sartorius Weighing Technology v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve)
   (Case T-331/12)
   2012/C 287/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sartorius Weighing Technology GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by K. Welkerling, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 May 2012 in Case R 1783/2011-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: other mark, which represents a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit, for goods in Classes 7, 9, 10 and 11

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-315/08: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia (Article 104(3), first indent, of the Rules of Procedure — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — Proximity — Supply of medicinal products to the population — Operating authorisation — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Minimum distance between pharmacies)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/20

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia
      (Case C-315/08) (1)

      (Article 104(3), first indent, of the Rules of Procedure - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Supply of medicinal products to the population - Operating authorisation - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Minimum distance between pharmacies)
      (2012/C 25/34)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Angelo Grisoli

         Defendant: Regione Lombardia

         Other party to the proceedings: Commune di Roccafranca

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 152 and 153 EC — Opening of new pharmacies — National legislation fixing limits on the basis of the number of inhabitants and laying down the conditions for authorising the opening of a new pharmacy

         Operative part of the order

      Article 49 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the establishment of new pharmacies by providing that

                  —

                  in towns with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants, only one pharmacy may be set up and

                  —

                  in towns with more than 4 000 inhabitants, the establishment of a new pharmacy is subject to conditions, such as the exceeding by at least 50 % of the number of inhabitants needed for a pharmacy and a minimum distance from already existing pharmacies,

            on condition that such legislation permits, by way of derogation from its basic rules, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to guarantee an appropriate pharmaceutical service in areas with special demographic or geographical characteristics, something which it is for the national court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-246/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/21

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino)
   (Case T-246/14)
   2014/C 235/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoworld SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2013 given in Case R 115/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘yogorino’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 36  536

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community trade mark No 7 2 56  829

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR


title: Case C-285/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Aboubacar Diakite v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Aboubacar Diakite v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
   (Case C-285/12)
   2012/C 235/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aboubacar Diakite

      Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

      Question referred

   Must Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees, or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that provision offers protection only in a situation of ‘internal armed conflict’, as interpreted by international humanitarian law and, in particular, by reference to Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, respectively)?
   If the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ referred to in Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/83 is to be given an interpretation independent of Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, what, in that case, are the criteria for determining whether such an ‘internal armed conflict’ exists?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case T-435/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF (Application for interim measures — Community programmes for research and technological development — Arbitration clause — Order for recovery — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Financial loss — No exceptional circumstances — No urgency)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF
   (Case T-435/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Community programmes for research and technological development - Arbitration clause - Order for recovery - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Financial loss - No exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
   2010/C 113/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GL2006 Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Gardenal and E. Belinguier-Raiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, and R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 10 July 2009 terminating the applicant’s participation in two Community projects and the debit notes issued on 7 August 2009 by which the Commission claimed repayment of sums paid pursuant to Community projects in which the applicant participated

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The European Commission shall be regarded as the sole defendant.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-499/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Fixing price targets, sharing clients through non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information — Imputability of the offending conduct — Discretion enjoyed by the Commission — Multiplier for deterrence — Equal treatment)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-499/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Fixing price targets, sharing clients through non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Imputability of the offending conduct - Discretion enjoyed by the Commission - Multiplier for deterrence - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 260/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH, Dow Europe GmbH (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Kuhn, Rechtsanwälte, and by T. Graf, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment in Case T-42/07 Dow Chemical and Others v Commission, by which the General Court (First Chamber) dismissed in part the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber), concerning an agreement on the fixing of price targets, the sharing of clients through non-aggression agreements and the exchange of commercial information, and for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH and Dow Europe GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-338/07 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2007 by Irène Bianchi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2007 in Case F-38/06, Bianchi v European Training Foundation

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/57

         Appeal brought on 4 September 2007 by Irène Bianchi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2007 in Case F-38/06, Bianchi v European Training Foundation
   (Case T-338/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Irène Bianchi (Turin, Italy) (represented by M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Training Foundation
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2007 in Case F-38/06;

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               Order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal failed to take into account or misunderstood certain facts and that that led to an erroneous assessment of the facts contrary to the second paragraph of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. She also claims that the Tribunal infringed Community law and, in particular, procedural rules, by distorting evidence submitted by the applicant. Finally, she relies on a plea alleging a failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons and an error of law resulting from an alleged failure to take into account, or distortion of, the facts or the evidence adduced in support thereof, and an erroneous finding of fact.


title: Case T-715/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community mark Castello — Earlier national figurative mark ‘Castelló’ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
   (Case T-715/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark Castello - Earlier national figurative mark ‘Castelló’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 205/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Horno del Espinar, S L (El Espinar, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2013 (Case R 2338/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, S L and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG;

               2)

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-61/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-61/17)
   (2017/C 144/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Miriam Bichat

      Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
               Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case T-474/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/16

         Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-474/17)
   (2017/C 357/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão, and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4136 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far it excludes from European Union financing expenditure declared by Portugal relating to the alleged failure to comply with the ceilings and payment deadlines;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 9(3) and 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32).


title: Case T-343/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — allsafe Jungfalk v OHIM (ALLSAFE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark ALLSAFE — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Absence of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — allsafe Jungfalk v OHIM (ALLSAFE)
   (Case T-343/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ALLSAFE - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Absence of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG (Engen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, J. Bühling, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

      Defendants: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 July 2007 (Case R 454/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ALLSAFE as a community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (Officials — Re-establishment of career — Examination of comparative merits — Criteria — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
C 212/24               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.7.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
                          of 3 May 2001                                     of a decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant
                                                                            the installation allowance and the daily substance allowances
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
in Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (1)                   P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                            H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 March 2001, the
(Officials — Re-establishment of career — Examination                       operative part of which is as follows:
of comparative merits — Criteria — Principle of equal
                             treatment)                                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                         (2001/C 212/44)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by E. Boigelot,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v European
Parliament (Agents: H. von Herzen and D. Moore) — appli-
cation for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June
1999 re-establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as it
promotes him to grade A4 with effect from 1 January 1998                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rather than 1 January 1997 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, and
V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen,                                               of 20 March 2001
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3 May 2001, in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs v European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 9 June 1999 re-                                          Parliament (1)
      establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as that decision
      specifies 1 January 1998 as the date on which his promotion           (Officials — Promotion by way of inter-institutional transfer
      to grade A4 is to take effect;                                        — Annulment by the Court of First Instance — Compliance
2.    Orders the defendant to pay all the costs.                            with the annulment — Decision of the Parliament to
                                                                            withdraw the earlier transfer of the official — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Manifestly unfounded in law)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
                                                                            lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                        of 30 March 2001                                    European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore)
                                                                            — application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament
in Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares v Commission of the                     of 15 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
                    European Communities (1)                                Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
                                                                            and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            20 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed.
                         (2001/C 212/45)                                    2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.
In Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Louis Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 20 November 1997 in Case C-338/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Wiener SI GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff heading - Nightdress)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 7/5
candidates unless reasons specific to an individual male             1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
candidate tilt the balance in his favour is not precluded by              prescribed the measures necessary to comply with:
Article 2 (1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
9 February 1976, on the implementation of the principle
of equal treatment for men and women as regards access                    Ð Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991
to employment, vocational training and promotion, and                         on batteries and accumulators containing certain
working conditions, provided that:                                            dangerous substances, and
Ð in each individual case the rule provides for male                      Ð Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
     candidates who are equally as qualified as the female                    1993 adapting to technical progress Directive 91/
     candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be                     157/EEC,
     the subject of an objective assessment which will take
     account of all criteria specific to the candidates and
     will override the priority accorded to female                        the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply
     candidates where one or more of those criteria tilts the             with its obligations under Article 11 (1) of Directive
     balance in favour of the male candidate, and                         91/157/EEC and Article 7 (1) of Directive 93/86/EEC;
Ð such criteria are not such as to discriminate against              2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     the female candidates.                                               costs.
(1) OJ C 46, 17. 2. 1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 269, 14. 9. 1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                     of 13 November 1997
in    Case C-236/96: Commission of the European                                          of 20 November 1997
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)                 in Case C-338/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose                the Bundesfinanzhof): Wiener SI GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
           Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)                                               Emmerich (1)
                          (98/C 7/09)                                (Common Customs Tariff Ð Tariff heading Ð Nightdress)
                                                                                (98/C 7/10)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-236/96: Commission of the European                                   published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Federal
Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to           In Case C-338/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
adopt within the periods prescribed the measures                     of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for
necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/157/EEC                a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators                       that court between Wiener SI GmbH and Hauptzollamt
containing certain dangerous substances (OJ L 78, 26. 3.             Emmerich Ð on the interpretation of subheading 60.04 B
1991, p. 38), and Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of                  IV b 2 bb of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version
4 October 1993 adapting to technical progress Directive              resulting from Council Regulation (EEC) No 3400/84 of
91/157/EEC (OJ L 264, 23. 10. 1993, p. 51), the Federal              27 November 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its                    68 on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 320, 10. 12.
obligations under the Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth                      1984, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                      M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                 Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has             given a judgment on 20 November 1997, the operative
given a judgment on 13 November 1997, in which it:                   part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/6                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10. 1. 98
Subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb of the Common Customs                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Tariff, in the version resulting from Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3400/84 of 27 November 1984 amending                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs
                                                                                of 20 November 1997
Tariff, must be construed as covering undergarments
which, by reason of their objective characteristics, are             in Case C-90/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
intended to be worn exclusively or essentially in bed.               the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto):
                                                                     David Petrie and Others v. UniversitaÁ degli Studi di
(1) OJ C 333, 9. 12. 1995.                                                             Verona, Camilla Bettoni (1)
                                                                     (Freedom of movement for workers Ð Foreign-language
                                                                     assistants Ð Eligibility for appointment to teach
                                                                     supplementary courses and to fill temporary teaching
                                                                                vacancies in universities)
                                                                                (98/C 7/12)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                    of 20 November 1997                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-244/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon): P. Moskof A.E. v.
              Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (1)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Agriculture Ð Raw tobacco Ð Monetary measures Ð                              published in the European Court Reports)
                Agricultural conversion rates)
                          (98/C 7/11)
                                                                     In Case C-90/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
                (Language of the case: Greek)                        Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that court between David
                                                                     Petrie and Others and UniversitaÁ degli Studi di Verona,
                                                                     Camilla Bettoni Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5 and
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                     freedom of movement for workers within the Community
                                                                     (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the
In Case C-244/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
of the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon               President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L.
that court between P. Moskof A.E. and Ethnikos                       Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Organismos Kapnou Ð on the validity of Commission                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993                       20 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be applied
in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317, 18. 12. 1993, p. 30) Ð
the Court, composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón                      Articles 5 and 48 (2) of the EC Treaty do not preclude a
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.              national rule which reserves eligibility for appointment to
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               fill temporary teaching vacancies in universities to tenured
judgment on 20 November 1997, in which it has ruled:                 teachers and established researchers and excludes foreign-
                                                                     language assistants, unless such appointment is open to
                                                                     other categories of staff appointed to university teaching
Examination of the various grounds referred to by the                otherwise than by way of open competition, whose
national court in its questions has not revealed any factor          teaching and academic skills are not subject to evaluation
capable of affecting the validity of Article 5 of                    in the same way as those of researchers, whilst foreign-
Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December                 language assistants who, under national law, have the
1993 concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be              same status and perform equivalent duties are excluded.
applied in the tobacco sector.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
(1) OJ C 268, 14. 10. 1995.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 1998 in Case C-375/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Conegliano): Galileo Zaninotto v. Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi - Ufficio di Conegliano - Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (Agriculture - Common organisation of the agricultural markets - Market in wine - Compulsory distillation scheme)

text:
C 397/10             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on                           employed persons and to members of their families
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                        moving within the Community;
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475), Article 7 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June
1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of
a Member State after having been employed in that State            2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(OJ, English Special Edition 1970(II), p. 402), Article 7 of
Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to             (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
remain in the territory of another Member State after
having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
capacity (OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10) and Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 od 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community (consolidated
version, OJ C 325, 10.12.1992, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                                          (Fifth Chamber)
Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                                    of 29 October 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in             in Case C-375/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
which it:                                                          the Pretura Circondariale di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di
                                                                   Conegliano): Galileo Zaninotto v. Ispettorato Centrale
                                                                   Repressione Frodi Ð Ufficio di Conegliano Ð Ministero
                                                                          delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)
1. Declares that, by precluding by regulation or
    administrative practice on the grounds of their                (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the agricultural
    nationality employed of self-employed workers from             markets Ð Market in wine Ð Compulsory distillation
    other Member States and the members of their families                                      scheme)
    from being attributed large-family status for the
    purpose of the award of special benefits for such                                       (98/C 397/16)
    families and from being awarded family allowances,
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
    Ð Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
    Ð Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
        68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
        for workers within the Community;
                                                                   In Case C-375/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                   Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Conegliano (District
    Ð Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Magistrates' Court, Treviso, Conegliano Division), Italy,
        No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
        workers to remain in the territory of a Member             that court between Galileo Zaninotto and Ispettorato
        State after having been employed in that State;            Centrale Repressione Frodi Ð Ufficio di Conegliano Ð
                                                                   Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali
                                                                   (Conegliano Office of the Central Inspectorate for the
    Ð Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of                  Prevention of Fraud in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food
        17 December 1974 concerning the right of                   and Forest Resources) Ð on the validity of the fourth
        nationals of a Member State to remain in the               indent of Article 1(3) of Commission Regulation (EC)
        territory of another Member State after having             No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
        pursued therein an activity in a self-employed             distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council
        capacity; and                                              Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/
                                                                   1994 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
                                                                   application thereof (OJ L 44, 17.2.1994, p. 9), of Article
                                                                   1(1)(c), (2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC)
    Ð Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/               No 465/94 of 1 March 1994 fixing for the 1993/1994
        71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social            wine year the percentages of table wine production to be
        security schemes to employed persons, to self-             delivered for compulsory distillation as provided for in
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/11
Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, in                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Regions 3 and 6 (OJ L 58, 2.3.1994, p. 2), as amended by
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 610/94 of 18 March
1994 (OJ L 77, 19.3.1994, p. 12), of Article 39(1) and (4)                                 of 29 October 1998
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine                      in Case C-114/97: Commission of the European
(OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1), of the fourth indent of                              Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 441/88
                                                                    (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Free
of 17 February 1988 laying down detailed rules for
                                                                    movement of workers Ð Freedom of establishment Ð
applying compulsory distillation as referred to in Article 39
                                                                    Freedom to provide services Ð Private security activities
of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 (OJ L 45, 18.2.1988,
                                                                                Ð Nationality conditions)
p. 15), and of Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 3151/94 of 21 December 1994 introducing a further                                          (98/C 397/17)
derogation from the detailed rules for the delivery by
producers of the table wine they are required to deliver for
compulsory distillation in respect of the 1993/1994 wine
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
year (OJ L 332, 22.12.1994, p. 32) Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; D.                          published in the European Court Reports)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                    In Case C-114/97: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Antonio Caeiro and Fernando
                                                                    Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Santiago
Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no                Ortiz Vaamonde) Ð application for a declaration that, by
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of:                 maintaining in force Articles 7, 8 and 10 of Law No 23/
                                                                    1992 of 30 July 1992, in so far as those provisions make
                                                                    the grant of authorisation to carry on private security
                                                                    activities, in the case of security companies, subject to the
Ð the fourth indent of Article 1(3) of Commission
                                                                    requirement of being constituted in Spain and the
    Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
                                                                    requirement that their directors and managers should
    opening compulsory distillation as provided for in
                                                                    reside in Spain and the requirement that security staff
    Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87
                                                                    should possess Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain
    and derogating for the 1993/1994 wine year from
                                                                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in
    certain detailed rules for the application thereof;
                                                                    particular Articles 48, 52 and 59 Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
                                                                    of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
Ð Article 1(1)(c) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)             Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L.
    No 465/94 of 1 March 1994 fixing for the 1993/1994              Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-
    wine year the percentages of table wine production to           General; R. Grass, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
    be delivered for compulsory distillation as provided            given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it:
    for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
    87, in Regions 3 and 6, as amended by Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 610/94 of 18 March 1994;                     1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 7, 8
                                                                         and 10 of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992, in so far
                                                                         as those provisions make the grant of authorisation to
Ð Article 39(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)                      carry on private security activities, in the case of
    No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common                             security companies, subject to the requirement of
    organisation of the market in wine; or                               being constituted in Spain and the requirement that
                                                                         their directors and managers should reside in Spain
                                                                         and the requirement that security staff should possess
                                                                         Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
Ð the fourth indent of Article 4(2) of Commission                        to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of
    Regulation (EEC) No 441/88 of 17 February 1988                       the EC Treaty;
    laying down detailed rules for applying compulsory
    distillation as referred to in Article 39 of Regulation
    (EEC) No 822/87.                                                2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                              (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.


title: Case T-313/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/33

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore v Commission
   (Case T-313/08)
   (2008/C 272/61)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in Official Journal L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission. In particular, infringement of Article 12 of the EC Treaty is alleged. In that regard, the applicant submits that the contested regulation discriminates in favour of the Kingdom of Spain, the quota for which was deemed to be exhausted on 23 June 2008 and not 16 June 2008.


title: Case T-364/11: Action brought on 12 July 2011 — Arla Foods v OHIM — Artax (Lactofree)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/26

         Action brought on 12 July 2011 — Arla Foods v OHIM — Artax (Lactofree)
   (Case T-364/11)
   2011/C 282/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arla Foods AMBA (Viby J, Denmark) (represented by: J. Hansen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artax Beteiligungs- und Vermögensverwaltungs AG (Linz, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 April 2011 in case R 1357/2009-2, and Community trade mark registration No 4647533 be declared invalid for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 in accordance with the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 September 2009; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘Lactofree’, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark registration No 4647533

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request pursuant to Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, which was based on the earlier Community trade mark registration No 4532751 for the figurative mark (in colour) ‘lactofree’, for goods in class 29

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the cancellation for a part of the goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and dismissed the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the comparison of the signs and thus in the overall assessment as to the likelihood of confusion between the figurative marks ‘lactofree’ and ‘Lactofree’.


title: Case C-406/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends from shares in companies — Rate of taxation for partnerships)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
   (Case C-406/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends from shares in companies - Rate of taxation for partnerships)
   2009/C 141/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, M. Tassopoulou and I. Pouli, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National rules providing for tax exemption for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies whose seat is in another Member State

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof;
               Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004), by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case F-32/10: Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Wilk v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/60

         Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Wilk v Commission
   (Case F-32/10)
   2010/C 179/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Wilk (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of decisions ordering recovery of one half of the installation allowance paid to the applicant following his divorce, and an application for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decisions of 20 August 2009 and 8 September 2009 ordering recovery of alleged overpayment;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 15 February 2010 upholding that recovery;

               —

               order the Commission to repay the sum taken back by the Commission with interest at the statutory rate from the date of recovery until settlement;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages for having seriously damaged the applicant’s image and reputation;

               —

               alternatively, reserve to the applicant the right to claim additional damages for the harm suffered;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-611/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/34

         Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)
   (Case T-611/13)
   2014/C 24/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Australian Gold LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Effect Management & Holding GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 1881/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the cost of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘HOT’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 25 — International registration designating the European Union No 797 277

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(c) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granted the application for a declaration of invalidity in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and Article 8(3) CTMR.


title: Case T-132/04: Action brought on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet against Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/7

         Action brought on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet against Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-132/04)
   (2004/C 168/12)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet, residing in Saint Pierre de Vassols (France), represented by Hervé de Lepinau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of 11 February 2004 and 4 March 2004, and also the decision appointing another person to the post which should have been filled by the applicant;

               —

               Hold declare that the recruitment of 4 February 2004 is to take full effect as from 1 March 2004;

               —

               Order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary harm and also the sum of EUR 5,000 per month with effect from 1 March until such time as the applicant actually takes up his duties;

               —

               In the alternative, should the decision of the Court of First Instance not make it inevitable that the applicant takes up his duties, order the Court of Justice to pay the applicant a total sum of EUR 260,000 plus interest at the statutory rate as from the date of the present application;

               —

               In any event, order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant applied for the post as lecteur d'arrêts in the cabinet of the President of the Court of Justice. He claims that he was chosen following the selection procedure but that, following the contested decisions, he was not appointed to the post.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the chef de cabinet was not competent to act in connection with the appointment of a law clerk at the Court. The applicant further claims that there has been a breach of essential procedural requirements such as the principle of parallelism of forms, a failure to state reasons and a breach of the rights of the defence.
   The applicant also alleges a breach of acquired rights, of the principle of non-retroactivity and of the principle of legal certainty and also a breach of the principle of respect for private life and of the principle of political neutrality. Last, the applicant claims that there has been a misuse of powers.


title: Case C-206/09: Order of the President of the Court of 18 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-206/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/53

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-481/08: Order of the General Court of 8 February 2010 — Alisei v Commission (Action for annulment — External action and EDF — Termination of audit and adoption of final report — Measure of a purely contractual nature — Lack of jurisdiction — No direct concern — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/40

         Order of the General Court of 8 February 2010 — Alisei v Commission
   (Case T-481/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - External action and EDF - Termination of audit and adoption of final report - Measure of a purely contractual nature - Lack of jurisdiction - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 100/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alisei (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, S. Gobbato, R. Rio and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel and L. Prete, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission letter of 19 August 2008 on the repayment of a part of the advances paid to the applicant in the context of certain development cooperation and humanitarian aid projects financed by the Community budget or by the European Development Fund (EDF) and, second, the compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the conduct of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Alisei is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case T-61/03: Action brought on 18 February 2003 by Irwin Industrial Tool Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
C 101/50               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Regione Siciliana                    a change in the intended use of the construction, that reason
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       not being included in Article 24 and inapplicable in any event
                                                                           on the facts of the present case.
                          (Case T-60/03)                                   —     The applicant also alleges that the Commission abused its
                                                                                powers by distorting the facts in that the contested
                                                                                decision cancelled the Community contribution without
                         (2003/C 101/86)                                         a proper legal basis and in the absence of factual
                                                                                circumstances such as might warrant cancellation.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     The applicant also alleges that the Commission gave an
                                                                                insufficient statement of reasons on a decisive point in as
                                                                                much as it found irregularities and problems in the
                                                                                financial management of the project which, however,
                                                                                have no relevance to the cancellation of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        contribution.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Regione
Siciliana, represented by Giacomo Aiello (Avvocato dello                   (1 ) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 20.
Stato).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 December 2002
      (C(2002)4905) concerning the cancellation of the contri-
      bution of the European Regional Development Fund                     Action brought on 18 February 2003 by Irwin Industrial
      (ERDF) towards an infrastructure investment of no less               Tool Company against the Office for Harmonization in
      than ECU 15 million in Italy (region: Sicily) and the                                       the Internal Market
      recovery of the advance paid by the Commission as part
      of that contribution, and
                                                                                (Case T-61/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/87)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
The present action is directed against the cancellation of the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contribution of                  Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
LIT 94 940 620 056 towards the creation of a reservoir by                  European Communities on 18 February 2003 by Irwin
                                                                           Industrial Tool Company, Hoffman Estates, USA, represented
means of damming the Gibbesi River in order to ensure a
reliable water supply to the industrial centre proposed for the            by Mr Graham Farrington, Solicitor.
Commune of Licata and to improve irrigation to an area of
approximately one thousand hectares.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its application, the applicant argues infringement           —     annul the Decision of the Defendant’s Third Board of
of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended by                      Appeal of 20 November 2002; and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993
amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down pro-                      —     order the Defendant to remit the application to its
visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as                          Examination Division for re-examination of Community
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural               Trade Mark number 1760867 and/or order the Defendant
Funds between themselves and with the operations of the                          to remit the application to its Board of Appeal to consider
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial                        the appeal under the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) of
instruments ( 1) in that the Commission’s decision to cancel the                 Community Trade Mark Regulation EC No 40/94 which
contribution was based on the assumption that there had been                     it declined to do on the original appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/51
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                                                                                of 16 July 2002;
Trade mark concerned:          QUICK-GRIP.        —    Application
                               No 1760867.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs even in the event
                                                                                that the present application is dismissed.
Product or service:            ‘Hand tools, clamps, c-clamps, bar
                               clamps, hold-down clamps, weld-
                               ing clamps, chain clamps, locking
                               bar clamps, locking hold-down
                               clamps, locking pipe clamps, pipe          Pleas in law and main arguments
                               clamps, part and fittings for the
                               aforesaid goods’ in International
                               Class 8.                                   In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges, first, lack of
                                                                          a statement of reasons. The applicant claims furthermore that
Decision        challenged     Refusal of registration.                   the assessment of the comparative merits of the officials
before the Board of                                                       eligible for promotion was incorrect and that it was not carried
Appeal:                                                                   out in relation to all the officials eligible for promotion.
Pleas in Law relied on:        Incorrect       application       of
                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Regu-
                               lation No 40/94.
                                                                          Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Georges Vassila-                                              (Case T-65/03)
  kis against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 101/89)
                          (Case T-62/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2003/C 101/88)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 25 February 2003 by Fondation
                                                                          Alsace, whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 represented by François Ruhlmann, lawyer.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Georges
Vassilakis, residing in Brussels, represented by Georgy Manalis,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     2002 or, in the alternative, the preceding decision related
                                                                                to it;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities, as the appointing authority, not to include            —     order the Commission to pay the Association Fondation
      the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted to                 Alsace EUR 3 000 by way of preparation allowance and
      Grade A 5 in the 2002 exercise to promote officials from                  costs of proceedings;
      one career to the next, as mentioned in Administrative
      Information No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                              —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs of
                                                                                the proceedings.
—     annul the list of officials promoted to A 5 in the 2002
      exercise to promote officials from one career to the next,                Alternatively:
      as mentioned in Administrative Information No 40-2002
      of 17 May 2002, insofar as it does not include the                  —     grant the Association Fondation Alsace the longest period
      applicant’s name;                                                         possible for payment.