title: Case C-316/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’ and Others v Westminster City Council (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 13(2) — Authorisation procedures — Concept of charges which may be incurred)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’ and Others v Westminster City Council
   (Case C-316/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 13(2) - Authorisation procedures - Concept of charges which may be incurred))
   (2017/C 014/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd

      Defendant: Westminster City Council

      Interveners: The Architects’ Registration Board, The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, The Bar Standards Board, The Care Quality Commission, The Farriers’ Registration Council, The Law Society, The Bar Council, The Local Government Association, Her Majesty’s Treasury

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the requirement for the payment of a fee, at the time of submitting an application for the grant or renewal of authorisation, part of which corresponds to the costs relating to the management and enforcement of the authorisation scheme concerned, even if that part is refundable if that application is refused.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-59/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Archer Daniels Midland Company against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/48               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         According to the applicant, the defendants further violated
                                                                        Articles 174, 175 and 176 of the EC Treaty by ignoring
                                                                        available scientific and technical data. The contested measure
                                                                        also violates Article 2 of the EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                        applicant, the measure distorts competition since it does not
                                                                        affect other competing plant protection products.
The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
products in the list of priority substances in the field of water
                                                                        The applicant submits also that there has been a violation of
policy. This list is established by the defendants in execution
                                                                        fundamental principles of Community law. The applicant
of Directive 2000/60/EC (1). The products listed are considered
                                                                        submits that the defendants have violated Directive 2000/60
to present a risk to or via the aquatic environment and
                                                                        and therefore have infringed a superior law. The defendants
their emissions must be reduced. Furthermore, the contested
                                                                        also violated the more specific Directive 91/414/EEC, accord-
decision indicates some of the applicant’s products as priority
                                                                        ing to which some of the applicant’s products are authorised
substances ’under review’, which will lead, according to the
                                                                        for use. The contested measure also violates the principle of
applicant, to a classification as priority hazardous substances.
                                                                        legal certainty and legitimate expectation since it frustrated the
These substances pose a higher risk for the aquatic environ-
                                                                        applicant’s expectations that its products would be assessed in
ment and their emissions must be eliminated.
                                                                        accordance with the procedure under Directive 91/414/EEC
                                                                        which is still current. The applicant further claims a violation
                                                                        of the principle of equal treatment, since the procedure used
                                                                        for the establishment of the contested measure has led to a
                                                                        result contrary to that reached by the procedure under
                                                                        Directive 91/414/EEC. The contested measure would, finally,
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the            infringe the principle of proportionality.
defendants violated the procedural requirements of Directive
2000/60/EC. Article 16 (2) point (a) of this Directive provides
that plant protection products are prioritised by a risk
assessment procedure. The Defendants used however a simpli-             (1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
fied procedure called ’combined monitoring-based and model-                 Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
ling-based priority setting’. According to the applicants, the              Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
defendants had no jurisdiction to use this simplified procedure             22.12.2000 P. 1).
currently instead of the risk-based procedure laid down in              (2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
Article 16 (2) point (a). According to the applicant, the                   placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
                                                                            19.8.1991 P. 1).
conditions laid down in Article 16 of Directive 2000/60/EC
for the use of a simplified procedure are not met. The applicant
further points out that the risk assessments of its plant
protection products under Directive 91/414/EEC (2) are still
continuing. Therefore, the defendants acted ultra vires by not
respecting the procedural and methodological requirements of
the basic Directive 2000/60.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Archer Daniels
                                                                        Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
The applicant further contests the creating of a list of priority                              pean Communities
substances under review. According to the applicant this list is
in fact a list of tentative priority hazardous substances.
                                                                                (Case T-59/02)
According to the applicant there is no legal basis to establish
such a list. There is also no reasoning for the selection of these
substances as priority substances under review.                                                  (2002/C 144/99)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant further submits that the contested decision is in
conflict with the more specific Council Directive 91/414/EEC
on plant protection products. Therefore the defendants violate          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the principle lex specialis derogat lex generalis. This Directive       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
imposes a specific risk assessment for plant protection prod-           European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Archer
ucts. According to the applicant, the result of this specific           Daniels Midland Company, represented by Ms Lynda Martin
procedure should have been awaited before the classification            Alegi, Mr Bill Batchelor, Ms Marta Garcia and Mr Carl Otto
of its products was undertaken.                                         Lenz of Baker & McKenzie, London (United Kingdom).
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/49
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             was a leader and its conclusions as to the appropriate level of
                                                                        deterrent uplift in its assessment of the fine.
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision, to the extent that it finds
      that Archer Daniels Midland Company (‘ADM’) has                   Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant has violated
      violated Article 81 EC Treaty and Article 53 EEA                  Article 15(2) of Regulation no. 17 and rules applicable to the
      Agreement by agreeing (i) to restrict capacity and (ii) to        setting of fines. In this regard, the applicant considers that
      designate price leaders in relation to citric acid;               there has been an infringement of the principles of legal
                                                                        certainty, inasmuch as the Guidelines of Fines Methodology
                                                                        was applied to a cartel which ended many years before
—     annul Article 3 of the Decision in so far as it pertains to       these Guidelines were adopted; equal treatment; protection of
      ADM;                                                              legitimate expectations and proportionality. In particular, the
                                                                        Commission did not correctly assesse the value of ADM’s
                                                                        cooperation
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
      pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce
      the fine imposed on ADM therein;
—     order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Hans Heu-
                                                                        bach GmbH & Co KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-64/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/100)
The applicant in the present case challenges the Commission
Decision of 5 December 2001, relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA                                     (Language of the case: German)
Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric Acid), to the
extent that it finds that ADM has violated these provisions by
agreeing to restrict capacity and to designate price leaders in
relation to citric acid.                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Hans
                                                                        Heubach GmbH & Co KG, of Langelsheim (Germany), rep-
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the Decision       resented by Frank Montag and Günter Bauer, lawyers.
is inadequately reasoned, in as much as:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     the Commission did not give proper reasons regarding
      how it took account of the damage to and the impact on
      competition or in relation to its decision not to take into       —     annul Article 3(b) of the contested decision;
      account, in assessing the level of ADM’s fine, ADM’s EEA
      in the affected product market;                                   —     reduce to a reasonable sum the amount of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;
—     it failed to state on what basis an uplift of 100 % could
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      be considered necessary to have a deterrent effect;
—     the Commission did not state reasons for assessing ADM
      as a leader.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The contested decision is the same as that at issue in Case
The applicant submits that there has been an infringement by            T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission (not yet
the Commission of essential procedural requirements, in that            published). The applicant argues that the basic amount of the
it failed to put to ADM its key conclusions regarding the               fine corresponds to more than 100 % of its EEA-wide product
nature of the violations in question, its conclusions that ADM          turnover in 1998, and that the amount of the fine imposed on


title: Case C-453/04: Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of  1 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — innoventif Ltd (Freedom of establishment — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Branch of a limited company established in another Member State — Registration of the objects of a company in the national register of companies — Requirement to pay an advance on the cost of publication of the full text of the objects of a company — Compatibility)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — innoventif Ltd
   (Case C-453/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Branch of a limited company established in another Member State - Registration of the objects of a company in the national register of companies - Requirement to pay an advance on the cost of publication of the full text of the objects of a company - Compatibility)
   (2006/C 178/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: innoventif Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC — Entry in the register of companies of a branch of a company limited by shares established in another Member State subject to the payment of an advance on the costs of publication of the objects of the company as set out in its instrument of constitution
   Operative part of the judgement
   Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State which makes registration, in the register of companies, of a branch of a limited company established in another Member State subject to the payment of an advance on the anticipated cost of the publication of the objects of the company as set out in its instrument of constitution.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case C-348/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Wiener Neustadt v Niederösterreichische Landesregierung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 2011/92/EU — Scope — Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ — No environmental impact assessment — Definitive authorisation — Legislative regularisation a posteriori of the lack of environmental impact assessment — Principle of cooperation — Article 4 TEU)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Wiener Neustadt v Niederösterreichische Landesregierung
   (Case C-348/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2011/92/EU - Scope - Concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ - No environmental impact assessment - Definitive authorisation - Legislative regularisation a posteriori of the lack of environmental impact assessment - Principle of cooperation - Article 4 TEU))
   (2017/C 014/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

      Defendant: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

      Intervening party: .A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers a project subject to a legislative provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a project which has been the subject of a decision taken in breach of the obligation to assess its effects on the environment, in respect of which the time limit for an action for annulment has expired, must be regarded as lawfully authorised. EU law precludes such a legislative provision insofar as it provides that a prior environmental impact assessment must be deemed to have been carried out for such a project.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 7 March 1995 in Case C-130/91 REV: ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Interdata (Centro de Processamento de Dados Limidada) v. Commission of the European Communities (Application for revision - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
22. 4. 95          | EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 101 /1
                                                                I
                                                         (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2, orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                      of 7 March 1995
in Case C-130/91 REV: ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio           (!) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Interdata                 OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
( Centro de Processamento de Dados Limidada) v.
       Commission of the European Communities ( a )
   (Application for revision — Manifest inadmissibility)
                        ( 95/C 101/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 March 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-345/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
        published in the European Court Reports)                   the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública,
                                                                      Ministério Público v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu ( J )
In Case C-130/91 REV: ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio                                     ( 95/C 101/02 )
ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional ), a company
incorporated under Portuguese law and established in                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Lisbon, and Interdata ( Centro de Processamento de Dados
Limidada ), a company incorporated under Portuguese law
and established in Lisbon ( avocat: Agostinho Amado                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Rodrigues ) v. Commission of the European Communities                      published in the European Court Reports)
(Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for revision
of the order of the Court of Justice of 14 January 1992 in         In Case C-345/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Case C-130/91 ISAE/VP and Interdata v. Commission
                                                                   of the EEC Treaty from the Tax Section of the Supremo
[ 1992] ECR 1-69 , — the Court, composed of: G. C.                 Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court),
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.        Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann (Presidents of                     pending before that court between Fazenda Publica,
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho          Ministério Público and Américo Joâo Nunes Tadeu — on
de Almeida, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward,            the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P.           — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a          de Almeida, Judge, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
judgment in which it:                                              D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                   F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 1995 , in
1 , dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;        which it rules :


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-52/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 5 of the EC Treaty and Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities - Failure to take the measures necessary to enable pension entitlements of officials to be transferred to the Community scheme)

text:
c 295/8                 1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27 . 9 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                         ( First Chamber)
                            of 17 July 1997                                                         of 17 July 1997
       in Case C-52/96 : Commission of the European                       in Case C- 142/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')                           the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Munchen v. Wacker
                                                                                Werke GmbH 8c Co. KG (')
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 5 of the EC Treaty and Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII               (Outward processing relief — Total or partial relief from
to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European                     import duties — Determination of value of compensating
Communities — Failure to take the measures necessary to                   products and temporary export goods — Reasonable
enable pension entitlements of officials to be transferred to                               means of determining value)
                       the Community scheme)
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/ 13 )
                              ( 97/C 295/ 12 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-142/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-52/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                          of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof for a
Communities ( represented by Julian Currall and Francisco
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( represented                 court between Hauptzollamt Munchen and Wacker Werke
by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado ) —
                                                                          GmbH & Co . KG on the interpretation of the second
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
                                                                          subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
national measures necessary to ensure that officials of the
                                                                          ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward processing
institutions are able to transfer their retirement pension
                                                                          relief arrangements and the standard exchange system ( OJ
rights to the Community pension scheme, the Kingdom of
                                                                          L 212, 2 . 8 . 1986 , p. 1 ), the Court ( First Chamber),
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 )
                                                                          composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
                                                                          Edward ( Rapporteur) and R Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,
European Communities and Article 5 of the EC Treaty,                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                          on 17 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen,
Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 17 July 1997, the operative part of                    The second subparagraph of Article 13 (2) of Council
which is as follows :
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 24 73/86 of 24 July 1986 on
                                                                          outward processing relief arrangements and the standard
                                                                          exchange system is not to be interpreted as meaning that a
1 . declares that, by not adopting the national measures                  method of determining processing costs may be considered
     necessary to ensure that officials of the institutions are           reasonable only if the resulting value of the temporary
     able to transfer their retirement pension rights to the              export goods corresponds approximately to the purchase
     Community pension scheme, the Kingdom of Spain                       price paid by the person entitled to outward processing
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 (2)            relief or to the manufacturing costs. Reference to the
     of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of               transaction value of the temporary export goods is a
     the European Communities and Article 5 of the EC                     reasonable means within the meaning of that provision.
     Treaty;                                                              Moreover, in determining the processing costs, reference
                                                                          may be made to the purchase price, inclusive of uplifts, of
                                                                           the temporary export goods even if this results in a higher
                                                                          rate of duty for the unprocessed goods than for the
2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           compensating products.
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                              (') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case C-244/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/18

         Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-244/14)
   2014/C 253/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Following an examination of the legal position in the Republic of Austria, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the correct transposition of some of the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC (1). The concerns relate essentially to provisions concerning safety certification and safety authorisation, national safety authorities, investigations, the investigation body and safety recommendations.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.


title: Case C-300/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag
   (Case C-300/04)
   (2004/C 228/58)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Raad van State (Council of State) (Netherlands) of 13 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger against het College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag (Municipal Executive of The Hague) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Part Two of the Treaty apply to persons who possess the nationality of a Member State and who are resident or living in a territory belonging to the OCTs referred to in Article 299(3) EC and having special relations with that Member State?

               2.

               If the answer is no: are the Member States free, in the light of the second sentence of Article 17(1) EC, to confer their nationality on persons who are resident or living in the OCTs referred to in Article 299(3) EC?

               3.

               Must Article 19(2) EC, read in conjunction with Articles 189 EC and 190(1) EC, be construed as meaning that – apart from the not unusual exceptions in national legal systems relating to, inter alia, deprivation of voting rights in connection with criminal convictions and legal incapacity – even in the case where the persons concerned are resident or living in the OCTs, the status of citizen of the Union automatically confers the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament?

               4.

               Do Articles 17 EC and 19(2) EC, read together and considered in the light of Article 3 of the Protocol, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, preclude persons who are not citizens of the Union from having the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament?

               5.

               Does Community law impose requirements as to the nature of the legal redress to be provided in the case where the national courts – on the basis of, inter alia, the answers given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities to the above questions – conclude that persons resident or living in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and having Netherlands nationality were improperly refused registration for the elections of 10 June 2004?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Maritime cabotage — Ships flying the French flag)

text:
4.11.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 316/7
Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of              that regulation — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member               D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kap-
States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of           teyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the country must be interpreted as meaning that:                             on 13 July 2000, in which it:
—     they grant taxable persons established in a Member State where         1.    Declares that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of
      only part of their transactions are taxed a right to partial refund          the French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards
      of the VAT which has been charged in a Member State where                    Community shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council
      they are not established on goods or services used for the purposes          Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
      of their transactions in the Member State of establishment;                  the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
                                                                                within Member States (maritime cabotage), the French Republic
—     the amount of VAT refundable is calculated, first, by determin-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;
      ing which transactions give rise to a right to deduction in the
      Member State of establishment and, second, by taking account           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      solely of the transactions which would also give rise to a right
      of deduction in the Member State of refund if they were carried
                                                                             (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      out there and of the expenses giving rise to a right to deduction
      in the latter State.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   of 13 July 2000
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-166/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour du travail de Bruxelles): Marthe Defreyn v
                                                                                Sabena SA (1)
                             of 13 July 2000
                                                                             (Equal pay for men and women — Additional pre-retirement
in Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                         payment)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/13)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
    — Maritime cabotage — Ships flying the French flag)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                            (2000/C 316/12)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             In Case C-166/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Cour du Travail,
                                                                             Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             before that court between Marthe Defreyn and Sabena SA, on
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             the interpretation of Protocol No 2 on Article 119 of the
                                                                             Treaty establishing the European Community, annexed to the
In Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communities                     EC Treaty, and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
(Agents: F. Benyon and B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents:                 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declar-                equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
ation that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of the                   employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards Community                      conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation                     composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
(EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle                   L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), the                 man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it ruled:


title: Case C-434/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of  2 December 2005  in Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of 2 December 2005 in Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-434/05)
   (2006/C 74/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 2 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 13 A(1)(i) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of education includes the making available, for consideration, of a teacher to an educational institution in order that he may temporarily provide teaching services there within the area of responsibility of that educational institution?

               2.

               If the answer to that question is in the negative, can the concept of ‘services closely related to education’ be interpreted as including the service described in Question 1 above?

               3.

               Are the answers to the above questions affected by the fact that the body which makes the teacher available is itself also an educational institution?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1977 L 145, p 1.


title: Case T-537/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Hultafors Group AB v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Snickers — Earlier national word mark KICKERS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Hultafors Group AB v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
   (Case T-537/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Snickers - Earlier national word mark KICKERS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 156/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hultafors Group AB (Bollebygd, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen and T. Swanstrøm, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cantaluppi, A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2011 (Case R 2519/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Società Italiana Calzature SpA and Hultafors Group AB

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hultafors Group AB to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Società Italiana Calzature SpA in the proceedings before the General Court, and the costs incurred by Società Italiana Calzature SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case T-77/08: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Dow Chemical v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Joint venture — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Dow Chemical v Commission
   (Case T-77/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Joint venture - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2012/C 80/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, Michigan, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and V. Bottka, subsequently by V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, and lastly by V. Bottka, P. Van Nuffel and L. Malferrari, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-27/08: Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Wellcome Foundation v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/30

         Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Wellcome Foundation v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
   (Case T-27/08)
   (2008/C 92/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal OHIM dated 19 November 2007 (Case R 9/2007-1) and declare the request for invalidation brought by the appellant well founded;

               —

               annul all cost orders made against the appellant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order the latter to bear the costs of the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in class 5 — Community trade mark No 2 491 298

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word marks ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 52 and 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal found the earlier trade marks to be used for ‘pharmaceutical preparations for cardiovascular illnesses’ and not ‘pharmaceutical preparations’ and as it assessed the relevant market, the relevant public, the level of attentiveness of the different parts of the relevant public and the similarity of the conflicting trade marks and goods incorrectly.


title: Case T-333/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Entrance Services v Parliament (Public services contracts — Community call for tenders procedure — Repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels — Rejection of a tender — Serious error in professional matters — Article 93 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/51

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Entrance Services v Parliament
   (Case T-333/07) (1)

   (Public services contracts - Community call for tenders procedure - Repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels - Rejection of a tender - Serious error in professional matters - Article 93 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002)
   (2008/C 209/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Entrance Services (Vilvorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and P. López-Carceller, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the call for tenders procedure concerning the repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Parliament rejecting the applicant's tender and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the call for tenders procedure concerning the repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels.

               2.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-380/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Late payment in commercial transactions — Time-limit — Directive 2000/35/EC — Infringement of Article 3(1), (2) and (4))

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-380/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Late payment in commercial transactions - Time-limit - Directive 2000/35/EC - Infringement of Article 3(1), (2) and (4))
   (2009/C 32/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3(1)(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Period of 90 days for the payment of certain staple foods
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294 of 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-845/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014  — August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/32

         Action brought on 24 December 2014 — August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)
   (Case T-845/14)
   (2015/C 089/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: August Brötje GmbH (Rastede, Germany) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HydroComfort’ — Application No 12 233 763

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1302/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case T-328/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Alsteens v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Restriction of the duration of the contract renewal — Rights of the defence)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2016 — Alsteens v Commission
   (Case T-328/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Renewal of contract - Restriction of the duration of the contract renewal - Rights of the defence))
   (2017/C 014/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and T. Bohr, and subsequently by: G. Berscheid and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, Alsteens v Commission (F-87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015, Alsteens v Commission (F-87/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:31) insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the first and third pleas in law seeking annulment raised at first instance and the claim for damages;

               2.

               Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 November 2011, insofar as it restricts the duration of the extension of Mr Geoffroy Alsteens’ temporary contract to 31 March 2012;

               4.

               Refers the action back to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal for a ruling on the claims for damages put forward by Mr Alsteens;

               5.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-597/10: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (BIESUL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Cessation of existence of dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul Internacional (BIESUL)
   (Case T-597/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Cessation of existence of dispute - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 331/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Biodes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul Internacional, SL

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 1519/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Manasul Internacional, SL and Biodes, SL.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-41/16: Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — Application for registration of a protected designation of origin ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Commission letters concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition proceedings relating to the registration procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/34

         Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
   (Case T-41/16) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Application for registration of a protected designation of origin ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Commission letters concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition proceedings relating to the registration procedure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 014/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders and Producers Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia), Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt)) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, P. Aalto and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of two letters from the European Commission of 18 November 2015 (Ref.Ares (2015) 5171539) and of 15 January 2016 (Ref.Ares (2016) 220922) concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition procedure relating to the procedure for registering the cheese called ‘Halloumi/Hellim’ as a protected designation of origin

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Cyprus.

               3.

               Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry, Animal Breeders and Producers Association, Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd, Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association and Mrs Fatma Garanti shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

               4.

               Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry, Animal Breeders and Producers Association, Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd, Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association, Mrs Fatma Garanti, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Cyprus shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-301/09: Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/10

         Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE)
   (Case T-301/09)
   2009/C 244/15
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: IG Communications Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Beard, Solicitor and M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2009 in case R 821/2005-1 in its entirety, or alternatively in part; and

               —

               Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITIGATE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 42

      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: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITI’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark application of the figurative mark ‘citi’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICORP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGROUP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBOND’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 38; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIEQUITY’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGARANT’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGOLD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘THE CITI NEVER SLEEPS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 8(5) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a conflict between the trade marks concerned.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 9 November 1995 in Case C-235/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Crown Court, Bolton): Criminal proceedings against Alan Geoffrey Bird (Social legislation relating to road transport - Exceptions for reasons of safety)

text:
No C 16/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 1 . 96
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General, D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social
on 9 November 1995 , the operative part is as follows:                 legislation relating to road transport does not authorize a
                                                                       driver to derogate from the provisions ofArticles 6, 7 or 8 of
                                                                       the Regulation for reasons known before the journey was
                                                                       commenced.
Article 6 of Commission Directive 88/301 /EEC of 16 May
1 988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications
terminal equipment must be interpreted as precluding the               (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
application of national rules which prohibit economic
agents from, and penalize them for, manufacturing,
importing, stocking for sale, marketing, distributing or
advertising terminal equipment without furnishing proof, in
the form of a type-approval or another document regarded
as equivalent, that such equipment conforms to certain
essential requirements relating in particular to the safety of
users and the proper functioning ofthe network where there
is no guarantee that a test laboratory responsible for
technically monitoring the conformity of the equipment
with the technical specifications is independent from                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
economic agents offering goods or services in the                                             ( Second Chamber)
telecommunications sector.
                                                                                of 16 November 1995
                                                                       in Case C-152/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                    the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent): criminal
                                                                                proceedings against Geert van Buynder (*)
                                                                       (Freedom ofestablishment — Veterinary surgeons — Purely
                                                                                internal situation)
                                                                                96/C 16/08
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          (First Chamber)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                      of 9 November 1995
in Case C-235/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              In Case C-152/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the Crown Court, Bolton ): Criminal proceedings against                of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( Court
                     Alan Geoffrey Bird ( 1 )                          of First Instance ), Ghent, for a preliminary ruling in the
 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Exceptions           criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                      for reasons of safety)                           Geert van Buynder — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
                             ( 96/C 16/07 )                            the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second Chamber), composed
                                                                       of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
                                                                       F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                                                                       Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
                (Language of the case: English)                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,
                                                                       the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-235/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Crown Court, Bolton, United                 Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not apply to a purely
 Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                      internal situation in a Member State such as that in which a
 proceedings pending before that court against Alan                     national of a Member State engages within its territory in a
 Geoffrey Bird — on the interpretation of Article 12 of                self-employed activity in respect of which he cannot rely on
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December                   any previous training acquired in another Member State.
 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
 relating to road transport ( OJ No L 370, p . 1 ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President             (M OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
 of the Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
 P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
 the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 November 1995 , the
 operative part of which is as follows :


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-536/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo António Jorge Lda v Fazenda Pública (VAT — Article 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax — Property transactions — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Deductible proportion)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-536/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo António Jorge Lda v Fazenda Pública (1)

   (VAT - Article 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Property transactions - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Deductible proportion)
   (2005/C 182/24)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-536/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal), made by decision of 26 November 2003, received at the Court on 22 December 2003, in the proceedings between António Jorge Lda and Fazenda Pública — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   It is contrary to Article 19(1) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — to include, in the denominator of the fraction making it possible to calculate the deductible proportion, the value of work in progress carried out by a taxable person in the course of civil construction activity, where that value does not correspond to the supply of goods or the provision of services which has already been made by the taxable person or which has given rise to statements of account of work and/or the receipt of payments on account.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.


title: Case F-12/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — CQ v Parliament (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Contract conference interpreters (AIC) — Article 90 of the CEOS — Psychological harassment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Internal rules concerning the Advisory committee dealing with harassment and its prevention at the workplace — Confidentiality of the work of that committee — Manifest errors of assessment)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/63

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — CQ v Parliament
      (Case F-12/13) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Temporary staff - Contract conference interpreters (AIC) - Article 90 of the CEOS - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Internal rules concerning the Advisory committee dealing with harassment and its prevention at the workplace - Confidentiality of the work of that committee - Manifest errors of assessment))
      (2014/C 395/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: CQ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application to annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament rejecting the complaint of psychological harassment brought by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CQ to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 40.


title: Case F-66/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — Barnett, Ditlevsen and Madsen v EESC (Civil service — Retired officials — Retirement pensions — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — Weightings — Annual update of weightings — Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations — Interim update — Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Sensitivity threshold — Change in the cost of living — Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations — Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 — Scope — Regulation No 1416/2013 — Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark — Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism — Misuse of powers)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — Barnett, Ditlevsen and Madsen v EESC
   (Case F-66/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Retired officials - Retirement pensions - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Weightings - Annual update of weightings - Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim update - Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Sensitivity threshold - Change in the cost of living - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 - Scope - Regulation No 1416/2013 - Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark - Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism - Misuse of powers))
   (2016/C 106/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic And Social Committee (represented by K. Gambino, A. Carvajal, L. Camarena Januzec and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who are resident in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension receipts for June 2014, and a claim for compensation for the non-material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the different and contradictory information used to support the contested decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Barnett, Ms Ditlevsen and Ms Madsen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.06.2015, p. 50.


title: Case C-244/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG (Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 2000/31/EC — National rules prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purpose of protecting children and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed — Image storage media imported from another Member State which have been examined and classified by the competent authority of that State and bear an age-limit label — Justification — Child protection — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG
   (Case C-244/06) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Directive 2000/31/EC - National rules prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purpose of protecting children and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed - Image storage media imported from another Member State which have been examined and classified by the competent authority of that State and bear an age-limit label - Justification - Child protection - Principle of proportionality)
   (2008/C 79/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Koblenz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Avides Media AG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Koblenz — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and the provisions of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — National legislation on the protection of youth prohibiting mail order sales of image storage media not labelled as having been declared available to young persons by the competent authority of the Member State — Image storage media imported from another Member State having been declared available to young persons above a certain age limit by the competent authority of that Member State — Principle of proportionality
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 28 EC does not preclude national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by a higher regional authority or a national voluntary self-regulation body for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority or that body indicating the age from which they may be viewed, unless it appears that the procedure for examination, classification and labelling of image storage media established by those rules is not readily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period, or that a decision of refusal is not open to challenge before the courts.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case F-129/12: Action brought on 31 October 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/73

         Action brought on 31 October 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-129/12)
   2013/C 26/151
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and the decision rejecting his request for assistance seeking recognition of psychological harassment, and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision to dismiss the applicant dated 19 January 2012;

               —

               annul the decision dated 20 March 2012, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 22 December 2011;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 20 July 2012, received on 24 July 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 30 March 2012 against the decision to dismiss him;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 8 October 2012, received on 11 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012 brought against the decision rejecting his request for assistance;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay EUR 120 000 in damages;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay all the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2005 in Case T-144/03, Nadine Schmit v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Mental harassment — Duty to assist — Obligation to state reasons — Non-inclusion of documents in personnel file)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 4 May 2005
   in Case T-144/03, Nadine Schmit v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Community officials - Mental harassment - Duty to assist - Obligation to state reasons - Non-inclusion of documents in personnel file)
   (2005/C 171/28)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-144/03, Nadine Schmit, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Jadoul, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg), — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 July 2002 refusing to withdraw certain allegedly defamatory documents from the applicant's personnel file, denying the existence of libellous statements about her and denying any harm resulting from the staff reports and promotion years and, if necessary, action for annulment of the Commission's decision of the same day refusing to register the applicant's 'pre-litigation claim' lodged by the applicant on 28 June 2002 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

               1

               Dismisses the action.

               2

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-85/05: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Community action in the field of water policy — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period )

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-85/05: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Community action in the field of water policy - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period )
   (2006/C 60/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-85/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 February 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005


title: Case C-614/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Single and continuous infringement — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-614/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Single and continuous infringement - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 104/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV, Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder and S. Heinz, Rechtsanwälte, and by B. Fischer, advocate, instructed by J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV and Hüppe BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-65/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2007 — Seldis v Commission (Officials — Probationary officials — Scientific or technical service — Appointment of a temporary agent following a competition — Classification in grade and step)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2007 — Seldis v Commission
   (Case T-65/05) (1)

   (Officials - Probationary officials - Scientific or technical service - Appointment of a temporary agent following a competition - Classification in grade and step)
   (2007/C 82/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Seldis (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment the Commission's decision of 5 April 2004 to appoint the applicant a probationary official in so far as it classifies him in grade A7, step 5.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.