title: Action brought on 2 June 1997 by Michaël Tavernier against the European Court of Auditors (Case T-170/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/15
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Heinrich Heine, v. Commission of the European                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Communities (Agents: Blanca VilaÂ Costa and Hubert van                                   of 8 October 1997
Vliet) Ð application for payment of the whole of the sum
charged for the transportation of free supplies of fruit           in Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
juice and fruit jams intended for the peoples of Armenia                 Sucre (CEFS) v. Council of the European Union
and Azerbaijan Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                (Sugar Ð Common organization of the markets Ð Fixing
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          of intervention prices Ð Interim measures procedure Ð
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                            Suspension of operation)
order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                                                (98/C 7/50)
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly                      (Language of the case: English)
     inadmissible.
                                                                   In Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                      Sucre (CEFS), established in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio García Porras,
(1) OJ C 26, 25. 1. 1997.                                          of the Salamanca Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12,
                                                                   boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
                                                                   Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Díez Parra),
                                                                   supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: James MacDonald Flett and Xavier Lewis) Ð
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              application pursuant to Articles 185 and 186 of the EC
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Treaty for suspension of the operation of Article 1 (f) of
                                                                   Council Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997
                     of 26 September 1997                          fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the derived
in Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli and others v.                    intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price
         Commission of the European Communities                    for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
                                                                   the amount of compensation for storage costs (1), in so far
(Community technological research and development
                                                                   as it affects European sugar producers or otherwise erga
policy Ð MAST III programme Ð Decision establishing
                                                                   omnes, and for all other such interim measures as the
the list of proposed actions eligible for a Community
                                                                   Court should judge necessary Ð the President of the
contribution Ð Procedure for interim relief Ð Application
                                                                   Court of First Instance has made an order on 8 October
         for suspension of operation of a measure)
                                                                   1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (98/C 7/49)
                                                                   1. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         support of the form of order sought by the Council.
In Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo           2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, researchers at the
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente
(ENEA Ð Centre for Research into New Technologies,                 3. Costs are reserved.
Energy and the Environment), established in Rome,
represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, Mariano Paolin              (1) OJ L 170, 28. 6. 1997, p. 3.
and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 39, rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for suspension of
operation, either wholly or in part, of the decision of the        Action brought on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier
Commission of 26 March 1997 establishing the main list                       against the European Court of Auditors
and the reserve list of proposed actions eligible for a                                    (Case T-170/97)
Community contribution under the MAST III programme
and, consequently, for suspension of operation of the                                        (98/C 7/51)
decision excluding the Posible programme Ð the President
of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                   (Language of the case: French)
26 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                           An action against the European Court of Auditors was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Communities on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier,
                                                                   residing in Lintgen (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-
2. The costs are reserved.                                         NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10. 1. 98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             retroactively for a period of six months, pursuant to
                                                                        the new, disputed weighting,
Ð annul the decision of the selection board not to admit
     the applicant to the oral test of internal competition
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to repay to the applicants the
     CC/B/7/95,
                                                                        curtailment of salary imposed on them by it with
                                                                        effect from May 1996 on the basis of the new,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 disputed weighting;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant, a former temporary member of staff, relies,
first, on a breach of the principle of equal treatment of          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
candidates and of the rules which govern the functioning
of the selection board, for the manner in which multiple
choice written tests are carried out does not ensure that          The applicants, all of whom work as officials of the
candidates are treated equally, or the objectivity of the          Commission Delegation in Tokyo or as temporary
choice of candidate made by the board.                             members of staff at the Iter Eda Centre, Naka Joint Work
                                                                   Site, Naka, object to the application to them of the
Secondly, he relies on a breach of the obligation to state         weightings fixed by Council Regulations (Euratom, ECSC,
reasons, since the board ought to have forwarded to the            EC) No 577/96, (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 578/96 and
applicant a statement of reasons for the contested decision        (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 579/96 laying down the
as required by Community case-law. The appointing                  weightings applicable from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995
authority should also have verified whether the two                and 1 July 1996 respectively to the remuneration of
disputed written tests were properly administered and              officials of the European Communities serving in third
informed the applicant of the result of its investigation.         countries (1). So far as concerns Japan, those Regulations
                                                                   gave rise to an appreciable reduction of the weighting
                                                                   which fell from 214,11 points, applicable from 1 January
                                                                   1994 and still applicable in May 1996, to 179,87 points
                                                                   as from 1 July 1994, 180,24 points as from 1 January
                                                                   1995 and 186,80 points as from 1 July 1995, that is to
                                                                   say, a drop of 16 % between 1 January 1994 and 1 June
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Bernard Bareyt and
                                                                   of that year.
Others against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                      (Case T-175/97)                              The applicants consider that those new weightings were
                                                                   adopted in breach of the detailed rules laid down in
                         (98/C 7/52)
                                                                   Article 13 of Annex X of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch
                                                                   as the Commission failed to submit, every six months, to
               (Language of the case: French)                      the Council the proposals for new weightings and the
                                                                   Council did not observe the one- or two-month time limit
An action against the Commission of the European                   for the adoption of new weightings. Likewise, the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Commission did not use its power of initiative to adopt,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997               of its own motion, new weightings in the event of a
by Bernard Bareyt, residing in Naka (Japan), Ivone                 variation in excess of 5 %; whereas from June to July
Benfatto, Denis Bessette, Pier Luigi Bruzzone, Giuliano            1994 the weightings in respect of Japan were reduced, on
Dalle Carbonare, Enrico Di Pietro, Barry John Green,               a proposal of the Commission, by 20,36 % for Tokyo and
Remmelt Haange, Ronald Hemsworth, Michel Huguet,                   47,15 % for Naka.
Marcus Iseli, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi Mondino, Alfredo
Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini, Mike Michael
Wykes, all residing in Naka (Japan), and Michel Dupon,             In the applicants' view, the Court should also find a
residing in Tokyo (Japan), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst,         manifest error of assessment. The contested Regulations
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                represent, with regard to Japan, a reduction of 14,02 %
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                    between the economic parity of January and that of June
Cessange.                                                          1994. However, it cannot be imagined that the cost of
                                                                   living in Japan could have fallen by the same extent
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        between those two months. Rather, Japan's cost of living
                                                                   is practically the highest in the world, a trend which is
                                                                   more marked every year.
Ð declare Regulations (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 577/96,
     (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 578/96 and (Euratom,
     ECSC, EC) No 579/96 adopted by the Council of the             So far as concerns recovery of the overpayment in respect
     Union on proposal of the Commission on 25 March               of the remunerations affected by the Regulations in
     1996 to be inapplicable,                                      question as a result of the retroactive effect thereof, the
                                                                   applicants claim, first, that Article 13 of Annex X of the
Ð order the Commission to repay to the applicants the              Staff Regulations does not provide for any retroactivity for
     salary which it withheld from them in June 1996               the application of new weightings. On the contrary, it is


title: Case T-173/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 171/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
—      Has not given due weight to the applicant’s interest in              Pleas in law and main arguments
       receiving the requested documentation
                                                                            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
                                                                            munity trade mark:
Moreover, the applicant doesn’t accept the Commission’s
contention that the Member States would have to be consulted
in relation to the submissions made by them in the minutes. It              Community trade mark         Figurative mark NLCollection —
is the applicant’s position that, in accordance with Article 4(4)           sought:                      Application No 1082809 for
of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, a consultation with a Member                                               goods in Class 25 (articles of
State shall take place only when it is not clear whether a                                               clothing, footwear and headgear).
document shall or shall not be disclosed. Furthermore, the
final decision as to whether or not a document shall be released
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        NAULOVER SA
remains with the Commission, and this must be reasoned and                  sign cited in the oppo-
clearly justified as falling within one of the exemptions                   sition proceedings:
provided for in the access regulation.
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Figurative mark NL (Community
                                                                            opposition:                  trade mark No 13417 and Span-
( 1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                                ish trade mark No 1329084).
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
     Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of              Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
     31.5.2001, p. 43).                                                     sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition with
                                                                                respect to Community trade mark
                                                                                No 13417.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by New Look Limited                                                        of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion).
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-171/03)
                         (2003/C 171/67)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-173/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                          (2003/C 171/68)
19 May 2003 by New Look Limited, established in Weymouth,
Dorset (United Kingdom), represented by R. Ballester and
G. Marín, lawyers.                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of OHIM (First Board of Appeal) of                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       15 April 2003 in Case No R 019/2003-1;                               Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes,
                                                                            Auckland, New Zealand, represented by Mr G. Farrington,
—      order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.                      Solicitor.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores
                                                                           de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., whose registered office is in
—     annul the decision adopted on 13 February 2003 by the                Barcelona (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation               Natalia Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, Retecal Sociedad Operadora
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case             de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. whose regis-
      R 839/2001-4;                                                        tered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Zamudio, Bizkaia (Spain) Telecable
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                  de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                 Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and
      Trade Mark number 1864107.                                           Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), whose registered office is in Oviedo
                                                                           (Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., whose
                                                                           registered office is in A Coruña (Spain), and Tenaria, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Cordovilla, Navarra (Spain)
                                                                           represented by José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-            The      word       mark       ‘NUR-
cerned:                        SERYROOM’         — application             The applicants claim that the Court should:
                               No 1864107
Goods or service con-          Goods in Class 16, 18, 21, 25 and
                                                                           —     annul the decisions of the Commission of 14 March
cerned:                        28 (e.g. books, clothes, plush toys)              2003 in so far as the Commission took the view that the
                                                                                agreement of 29 January 2003 did not give rise to a new
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the                    concentration;
before the Board of            examiner
Appeal:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                                proceedings.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            Pleas in law and main arguments
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           The applicants in the present action are contesting the
                                                                           decisions of 14 March 2003 by which the Commission decided
                                                                           to take no further action on the complaints lodged by them
                                                                           against an agreement between the companies Sogecable and
                                                                           Telefónica on 29 January 2003 which, in their view, gives rise
Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de
                                                                           to a new concentration by comparison with the concentration
Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de
                                                                           previously notified on 3 July 2002, which was referred to the
Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel,                     national authorities by decision of 14 August 2002 ( 1).
S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from
the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable
de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), R. Cable y
Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against
         Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicants, the abovementioned agreement
                                                                           of 20 January 2003 envisages the possibility, which had
                                                                           initially been discarded, that Telefónica’s final share of Soge-
                         (Case T-180/03)                                   cable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
                                                                           the company’s reference partners. The agreement also provides
                         (2003/C 171/69)                                   that Telefónica will waive certain rights affecting questions of
                                                                           policy arising from the major shareholding of those assets by
                                                                           Prisa and Groupe Canal+. On the other hand, Telefónica would
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         remain a shareholder in Sogecable with effect from the
                                                                           implementation of the concentration operation. Furthermore,
                                                                           with the purpose of assisting the integration of their platforms,
                                                                           Prisa, Groupe Canal+ and Telefónica each agreed to provide
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Sogecable with a loan with profit participation amounting to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 EUR 50 million repayable in 10 years. It was also agreed


title: Case C-643/15: Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Slovak Republic v Council of the European Union

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/41

         Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Slovak Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-643/15)
   (2016/C 038/55)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece; (1)

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Slovak Republic puts forward six pleas in law in support of its action:

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 68 TFEU and of Article 13(2) TEU and the principle of institutional balance
               By adopting the contested decision going beyond the preceding guidelines of the European Council, and hence contrary to its mandate, the Council infringed Article 68 TFEU as well as Article 13(2) TEU and the principle of institutional balance.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, Article 78(3) TFEU, Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No 1 and Articles 6 and 7 of Protocol No 2, and the principles of legal certainty, representative democracy and institutional balance
               An act such as the contested decision cannot be adopted on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU. In the light of its content, the contested decision has the character of a legislative act, and should therefore have been adopted by the legislative process, which is not however provided for in Article 78(3) TFEU. By adopting the contested decision on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU, the Council not only infringed that provision but also encroached on the rights of national parliaments and the European Parliament.

               3.

               Third plea in law: breach of essential procedural requirements governing the legislative process, and infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration
               Should the Court of Justice, contrary to the submissions of the Slovak Republic in the second plea in law, reach the conclusion that the contested decision was adopted by the legislative process (quod non), the Slovak Republic pleads, in the alternative, infringement of essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 16(8) TEU, Article 15(2) TFEU, Article 78(3) TFEU, Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No 1, Articles 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Protocol No 2, and also infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration. Specifically, there was a failure to comply with the requirement of publicity of negotiating and voting in the Council, a restriction of the participation of national parliaments in the process of adopting the contested decision, and a breach of the condition of consultation of the European Parliament.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: breach of essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 78(3) TFEU and Article 293 TFEU, and infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration
               Before adopting the contested decision, the Council made several amendments and additions to the Commission’s proposal. It thereby breached essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 78(3) TFEU and Article 293 TFEU, and infringed Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration. The European Parliament was not properly consulted and the Council did not decide unanimously on the amendments and additions to the Commission’s proposal.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of Article 78(3) TFEU because of the non-fulfilment of the conditions of its applicability
               In the alternative to the second plea in law, the Slovak Republic pleads an infringement of Article 78(3) TFEU on the ground of non-fulfilment of the conditions for its applicability, relating to the temporary nature of the measures adopted and to the existence of an emergency situation as a result of the sudden arrival of nationals of third countries.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: breach of the principle of proportionality
               The contested decision is manifestly contrary to the principle of proportionality, since it is manifestly neither appropriate nor necessary for attaining the aim pursued.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80.


25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-390/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Bank Melli Iran v Council (Applications for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Council decision — Measure to freeze funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency — Absence of serious and irreparable damage)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/28

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Bank Melli Iran v Council
   (Case T-390/08 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Council decision - Measure to freeze funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency - Absence of serious and irreparable damage)
   (2008/C 327/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Bank Melli Iran is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-92/97)

text:
No C 108/20          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 4 . 97
    under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                 on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
    Treaty and Article 23 ( 1 ) of Directive 92/43/EEC,                Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and Laura
                                                                       Pignataro, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
    inform    the  Commission         of such    measures,   the       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
     under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, by
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                           failing to communicate within the prescribed period
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/106/
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                          EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                              common rules for certain types of combined transport
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period                    of goods between Member States ( 1 ), the Kingdom of
expired on 5 June 1994 without Portugal having brought                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
into force the necessary provisions .                                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
O OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
                                                                       — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
                        ( Case C-92/97)                                those in Case C-88/97 (2 ); the time-limit for transposition
                          ( 97/C 108/40 )                              expired on 1 July 1993 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   (') OJ No L 368 , 17. 12 . 1992, p. 38 .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              fred Ungemach and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwalte,
                     of 25 February 1997                                Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke                   against Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
 Lippe-Ems GmbH v. Commission of the European                           Jiirgen Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of
                        Communities f )                                  Commission Decision 94/95/Euratom of 4 February 1994
                                                                         relating to a procedure in application of the second
  (Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                  paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No
 damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                    L 48 , 19 . 2 . 1994, p. 45 ), and of Commission Decision
  uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency                   94/285/Euratom of 21 February 1994 relating to a
 — Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal                     proceeding in application of the second paragraph of
  obstacle to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin               Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No L 122, 17. 5 .
           of the uranium — Market-related prices)                        1994, p. 30 ), and for damages — the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 108/41 )                               Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                          composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W. Bellamy, A.
                                                                          Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and M. R. M. Moura Ramos,
                (Language of the case: German)                            Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 February 1997, in
                                                                          which it:
  In Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke
  Lippe-Ems GmbH, established in Lingen, Ems ( Germany ),
  represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard Wiedemann, Man                      1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Case T-552/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Commission v Domótica

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/33

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Commission v Domótica
   (Case T-552/08)
   (2009/C 55/61)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission (represented by A.M. Rochaud-Jöet and S. Petrova, Agents, assisted by G. Anastácio and A.R. Andrade, lawyers)

      Defendant: Domótica, Estudo e Projecto de Edifícios Inteligentes, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal)
   Form of order sought

               —

               An order that the defendant should pay the applicant the sum of EUR 124 319,22, being the repayment of an advance paid by the applicant in performance of contract No BU/466/94 PO/ES, concluded in connection with the Thermie programme and terminated on grounds of the failure of the defendant and other cocontractors to perform their contractual obligations, with an increase of EUR 48 000 by way of default interest accrued until 30 September 2008 and interest still to fall due until full and final payment;

               —

               An order that the defendant should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 17 January 1995 the Commission of the European Communities concluded Thermie contract No BU/466/94 PO/ES with the defendant, with the teaching hospitals of Coimbra and with the company Técnicas Reunidas S.S., pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (1).
   The defendant was appointed to be project co-ordinator and took on responsibility for submitting to the Commission the necessary documents, and to act as link between the contractors and the Commission. The liability of the cocontractors was joint and several.
   On 10 February 1995, in accordance with what had been agreed, the Commission paid the advance of 30 %, that is to say, EUR 176 693.
   On 24 May 2000 the Commission rescinded the contract for just cause (having put the defendant on notice), putting forward the following failures to perform contractual obligations:

               —

               delays in performance not communicated timeously to the Commission;

               —

               Domótica's inability to begin to perform the contract (admitted by the defendant);

               —

               failure to send to the Commission financial and technical reports in good time and due form;

               —

               failure to conclude work implementing the project within the original period, or within the extension subsequently granted (31 August 2000).

         As a result of the wrongful conduct of the cocontractors, the latter failed to fulfil their contractual obligations.
   The contract provided that it was possible for the Commission to demand repayment, in whole or in part, of its financial assistance, together with interest in the case of non-performance by the cocontractors.
   The Commission is entitled to repayment of EUR 172 499,22, equivalent to the value of the original amount advanced, together with interest accrued, as from 10 February 1995, the costs of part performance incurred by the defendant and accepted by the Commission having been deducted, to which sum must be added interest not yet fallen due.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 of 29 June 1990 concerning the promotion of energy technology in Europe (thermie programme) (OJ 1990 L 185, p. 1).


title: Case F-59/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 May 2015 — Brune v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Annulment by the General Court — Article 266 TFEU — Organisation of another oral test — Refusal by the candidate to participate — New decision not to include the candidate on the reserve list — Action for annulment — Dismissal — Judgment of the General Court upheld on appeal — Later application for compensation — Observance of reasonable time-limit)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 May 2015 — Brune v Commission
   (Case F-59/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Annulment by the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Organisation of another oral test - Refusal by the candidate to participate - New decision not to include the candidate on the reserve list - Action for annulment - Dismissal - Judgment of the General Court upheld on appeal - Later application for compensation - Observance of reasonable time-limit))
   (2015/C 213/72)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Markus Brune (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Claim for damages to compensate the alleged loss of an opportunity to be recruited to a position in the EU, based on the judgment in Case F-5/08.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Brune, on account of the non-pecuniary loss incurred between 6 March 2007 and 4 February 2011, the sum of EUR 4  000, plus default interest from 17 April 2013 at a rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations over the period concerned and increased by two points;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by Mr Brune;

               4.

               Orders Mr Brune to bear 50 % of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 48.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 304, 13.12.2003

text:
C 7/44        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         10.1.2004
                                                         III
                                                      (Notices)
                                                   (2004/C 7/83)
              Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
       OJ C 304, 13.12.2003
       Past publications
       OJ C 289, 29.11.2003
       OJ C 275, 15.11.2003
       OJ C 264, 1.11.2003
       OJ C 251, 18.10.2003
       OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
       OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
                                            These texts are available on:
                                       EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                        CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-56/06: Action brought on  9 May 2006  — Chassagne v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/29

         Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-56/06)
   (2006/C 154/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriques, Y. Minatchy and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's career development report for 2004;

               —

               annul the Directorate-General's decision allocating priority points during the 2005 promotion exercise;

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decisions of 30 January 2006 and 14 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complains against the abovementioned decisions;

               —

               award nominal damages of one euro for professional harm and one euro for non-pecuniary harm arising from the adoption of the contested decisions;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies first of all on the unlawfulness of the General implementing provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations.
   He claims, next, that there has been a breach of a number of procedural requirements, such as the rights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons and compliance with the rules of procedure.
   The applicant further maintains that the administration has made a number of manifest errors of assessment, notably in the context of considering comparative merits and in allocating priority points.
   Last, in the applicant's submission, the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.


title: Case T-726/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament (Public service contracts — Property market — Tender procedure — Negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice — Premises for the European Union House in Ljubljana — Rejection of the tender after prospecting the local market — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Failure to examine the documents annexed to the tender — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament
   (Case T-726/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Property market - Tender procedure - Negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice - Premises for the European Union House in Ljubljana - Rejection of the tender after prospecting the local market - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Failure to examine the documents annexed to the tender - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 239/56)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicants: Jožica Blaž Jamnik and Brina Blaž (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: D. Mihevc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Naglič, P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 12 October 2015 rejecting, after prospection of the local market, the tender submitted by the applicants in connection with building contract INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI 06 concerning the future European Union House in Ljubljana and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, in the alternative, a claim under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jožica Blaž Jamnik and Brina Blaž to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-48/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament (Interim measures — Financing of a political party — Institutional law — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/47

         Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament
   (Case T-48/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Financing of a political party - Institutional law - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency))
   (2017/C 144/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering a waiver of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition of the prefinancing of the subsidy flowing from Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 13 December 2016 on the financing granted to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-69/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — BF v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Procedure for filling the post of director — Report of the pre-selection board — Statement of reasons — None — Unlawfulness of the nomination decision — Conditions)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — BF v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-69/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Procedure for filling the post of director - Report of the pre-selection board - Statement of reasons - None - Unlawfulness of the nomination decision - Conditions)
   2013/C 352/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Court of Auditors not to appoint the applicant to the post of director of the Directorate of Human Resources and to appoint another candidate to that post.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of 18 November 2011 by which the Court of Auditors of the European Union appointed Ms Z to the post of Director of Human Resources and rejected BF’s candidacy for that post;

               2.

               Considers that there is no need to adjudicate on the request of the Court of Auditors of the European Union to remove from the file Annexes A7 and A11 to the application;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Court of Auditors of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BF.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 52.


title: Case C-439/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 August 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev
      (Case C-439/16)
      (2016/C 364/07)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Party to the main proceedings

      Emil Milev

         Question referred

      Is a domestic precedent — in particular a binding Opinion of the Varhoven Sad [(Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation; ‘the Supreme Court’)] (delivered after the adoption of Directive 2016/343 (1) of 9 March 2016 but before the time limit for its transposition has passed), pursuant to which the Varhoven Sad [(Supreme Court)], after having established that there is a conflict between Article 5(4) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [(‘the ECHR’)], read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c) thereof, and national legislation (Article 270(2) of the [Bulgarian] Criminal Procedure Code (Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks)) relating to the issue of whether to take into consideration the reasonable grounds for assuming that an offence was committed (within the context of a procedure for reviewing the extension of a coercive measure of ‘remand in custody’ during the litigation stage of criminal proceedings), grants to the courts dealing with the substance of the case the power to decide whether to comply with the [ECHR] — consistent with Article 3 of Directive 2016/343 of 9 March 2016 and Article 6 thereof (relating to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof within the context of criminal proceedings)?

         (1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).


title: Case C-124/06: Action brought on  2 March 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/9

         Action brought on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-124/06)
   (2006/C 96/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Georgios Zavvos, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the case in point, Article 5 of Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 1 January 2005 at the latest and are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ No L 178, 17.7.2003, p. 16.


title: Case C-552/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/23

         Action brought on 23 October 2015 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-552/15)
   (2015/C 414/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier, J. Tomkin, agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by levying a full amount of registration tax upon the registration by an Irish resident of a motor vehicle leased or rented in another Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use, where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Ireland on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that way, and by setting conditions for a refund of this tax which go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         The national legislation at issue

   Ireland's Finance Act, 1992 (as amended) provides for the imposition of a tax on the registration of motor vehicles imported into the State. Pursuant to that Act, importers of vehicles are required to discharge, upon registration, the entire tax applicable for permanent registration. This requirement applies to all imported cars regardless of the intended and actual duration of their use in the State and includes cars that are hired or leased from abroad for pre-determined limited periods of time. While the Irish authorities have introduced the possibility to obtain a subsequent refund of excess tax paid, such a refund may only be granted following inspection and exportation of the vehicle at issue. There is no provision for interest to be paid on excess tax which had been retained and a EUR 500 fee is charged for the administration of the refund procedure.

         Principal arguments

   The Commission considers that Ireland's system for taxing the registration of motor vehicles imposes a disproportionate cash-flow and financial burden on Irish residents seeking to import hired or leased cars for pre-determined limited periods of time. In the Commission's view, the national rules at issue make it considerably more difficult and costly to hire and lease cars from other Member States than it is to hire or lease cars from undertakings established in Ireland. The Commission submits that Ireland's vehicle registration tax is liable to impede the provision and receipt of leasing and hiring services, is disproportionate, and therefore in breach of Article 56 TFEU.


title: Case T-107/09: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 September 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 September 2009 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-107/09) (1)

   2009/C 256/67

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-218/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 158/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.7.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of                               Removal from the register of Case C-339/01 ( 1)
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 158/33)
                         (Case C-218/03)
                         (2003/C 158/32)
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-339/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Vorarlberg): Kurt Beck.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser, and N. Yerrell, of the         (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/80/EC ( 1) of 15 December 1997 on                     Removal from the register of Case C-343/01 ( 1)
      the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on
      sex, or in any event by failing to communicate such
      provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                                  (2003/C 158/34)
      obligations under that directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-343/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Vorarlberg): Christian Kröll.
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
to which it is addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                 Removal from the register of Case C-357/01 ( 1)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/35)
The Hellenic Republic has not contested the fact that it must
take measures to comply with the above-mentioned directive.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
The Commission has ascertained that the Hellenic Republic                from the register of Case C-357/01 (Reference for a preliminary
has not as yet taken appropriate measures to incorporate the             ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.                 Vorarlberg): Manfred Laaber.
( 1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 6.                                           (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Action brought on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola against the European Investment Bank (Case T-7/98)

text:
C 94/30              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
Instance on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl Boone and                applicants were required, until the very eve of 1 January
Others, established in Belgium, represented by Pierre               1993, to carry on their activities in the same way, before
Cavenaile and Koenraad Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an           becoming subject to the entry into force of the new rules.
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                                  Finally, by adopting Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92, the
                                                                    Council failed entirely to take account of the location or
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance               size of the undertakings.
should:
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
                                                                        on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay a                   internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
    provisional sum, subject to increase or reduction in the        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3632/85 of 12 December 1985
    course of the proceedings, together with interest                   defining the conditions under which a person may be
    thereon at the rate of 8 % from 1 January 1993, the                 permitted to make a customs declaration (OJ L 350,
    date on which the damage actually occurred, until the               31.12.1992, p. 1).
    date of actual payment,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    entirety of the costs.
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              against the European Investment Bank
                                                                                (Case T-7/98)
The applicants, which are Belgian customs agents, seek
compensation for damage suffered as a result of                                                (98/C 94/75)
completion of the internal market: the Community
institutions failed to adopt effective transitional measures                         (Language of the case: Italian)
to enable customs agents to adjust progressively to the
new requirements. In the applicants' view, the only                 An action against the European Investment Bank was
reaction on the part of the Community institutions is               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92,                   Communities on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
published on 31 December 1992 (1) Ð that is to say the              represented by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, and Fergus
day before the entry into force of the rules that are ruining       Randolph, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
their businesses Ð which envisages measures that are                address for service in Luxembourg at Carlo De Nicola's
totally inappropriate to their legitimate expectations and          own address, 16 Rue du Kiem.
to those of the profession as a whole.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of their claims, they allege breach of the
principle of the observance of acquired rights, the                 Ð annul the promotions communicated on 23 July 1997
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and               in so far as they do not contain the applicant's name
the principle of non-discrimination.                                     at point 1.1, annul the decision contained in letter
                                                                         RH/DIR/97-101 of 3 October 1997 and, finally, annul
They state in that connection that, in Regulation (EEC)                  all subsequent related acts, including the assessment
No 3632/85 (2), the Council recognised the existence and                 made of the applicant in respect of 1996 inasmuch as
legitimacy of the profession of customs agent, and no                    it does not propose his promotion to work in D,
indication, either implicit or explicit, has been given that
the position has changed. In their view, they were thereby          Ð order the defendant EIB to pay compensation for
recognised as enjoying a genuine right acquired before the               physical, non-material and material damage.
adoption of the Single European Act, that is to say at a
time when the envisaged extent of European construction
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
did not call for the abolition of intra-Community
frontiers.
                                                                    The applicant, an official of the European Investment
                                                                    Bank, contests the appointing authority's refusal to
As regards the protection of legitimate expectations, the           promote him from E to D in the context of the
applicants consider that when the economic impossibility            promotions decided upon on 23 July 1997.
of exercising a given profession is the result of measures of
secondary law, the legitimate expectations entertained by
economic operators regarding the conduct of the                     The applicant sets out a number of specific situations
Community institutions are frustrated. In their opinion,            within his department and goes on to put forward in
the infringement of their expectations is particularly              support of his claim the following pleas in law:
serious where, as in this case, the supervening
impossibility was severe and total. Moreover, the                   Ð abuse of powers, inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
infringement had particularly serious consequences in this               were infringed, and unequal treatment, inasmuch as
case since, under Regulation (EEC) No 3623/85, the                       the Director-General for Finance had implemented a
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/31
    new rule departing from the provisions of Article 23                termination of the contract and by its notification on
    of the Staff Regulations, according to which the                    the last possible date,
    development of each official's career is linked to the
    results achieved by the department to which he is
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    assigned. This method would favour officials who
    carry out administrative duties over those in
    operational units which involve a high level of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    professional risk. Moreover, in the present case, the
    evaluation of the applicant's work was always made
    by managers of whom he had always been critical,               The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    whereas sound management requires the absolute                 are the same as those raised in Case C-257/97 E-Quattro
    separation of assessors and assessed,                          v. Commission (1).
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 9.
Ð distortion of the facts and misuse of powers. In the
    applicant's annual assessment for 1996 there are many
    positive statements about him. Nonetheless, the
    defendant blocked every possible career route within
    the Treasury Department. Thus the annual report was
    used systematically for purposes other than those for
    which it was intended,                                         Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl and
                                                                   Others against the Council of the European Union and the
Ð manifest illogicality and inconsistency of the rejection.                 Commission of the European Communities
    First, in 1996 he assumed direct responsibility for the                                (Case T-12/98)
    management of the cover portfolio and the Guarantee
    Fund, which belies the contested decision, and,                                         (98/C 94/77)
    secondly, since Article 23 of the defendant's Staff
    Regulations places no limits on promotions to D, if                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    the real obstacle to the promotion in question was that
    there were fewer opportunities in the unit dealing with
    obligations, it would have sufficed to transfer the            An action against the Council of the European Union and
    applicant to another operational unit in order to              the Commission of the European Communities was
    resolve the problem.                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl, Berca srl,
                                                                   Bonaldi snc di Guidetti & Co., Camasped di Cassini
                                                                   Marco, Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali srl, Centro
                                                                   Servizi Doganali srl, Comimpex srl, EIR, Casa di
                                                                   spedizioni snc di Brassanelli Eligio & Co., Emmedue sas
                                                                   di Felisati & Co. in liquidazione, Errek sas, F.lli Colli srl,
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by SocietaÁ E-Quattro               F.lli Ramella srl, Greco Umberto di Umberto Greco snc,
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Lurasped di Luerti G. & C. sas in liquidazione, Monterisi
                        (Case T-10/98)                             Giuseppe & Co., Rossi Sergio & Co. snc, Servizi Doganali
                                                                   di Piras Giorgio & Co. snc, Spedizioni ST1 srl, Toccafondi
                         (98/C 94/76)                              Claudio Spedizioniere Doganale srl in liquidazione, Tre
                                                                   Esse snc di Torresani F.lli e Crescini Leandro, Unisped srl,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     Vergani Spedizioni srl in liquidazione, represented by
                                                                   Gregorio Leone of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough of the
                                                                   Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Rue.
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997
by SocietaÁ E-Quattro, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service        The applicants claim that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
                                                                        the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
                                                                        repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
                                                                        agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
Ð order the Commission to make good the damage
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
    suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
    of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
    services set out in the unpaid invoice,
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
Ð order, further, the Commission to make good the                       adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
    damage caused to the company by the unjustified                     protection of the rights of the applicants,


title: Case C-168/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of 11 April 2001 in the case of Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 200/41
2.    Are the provisions of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations                meaning that the said Articles 43 and 48 do not affect
      of the European Communities (Article 2 of Council                       the applicability of the Netherlands rules laid down in
      Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 Febru-                  that law, on the ground that the provisions in question
      ary 1968) and those contained in Annex II to the Staff                  are justified for the reasons stated by the Netherlands
      Regulations concerning the Staff Committee, which also                  legislature?
      represents the interests of local staff of the Communities,
      to be interpreted as laying down exhaustive rules on
      collective employment law and the powers of co-decision
      of local staff and thus as precluding the application of the
      law on labour relations in the workplace laid down in the
      Austrian Labour Constitution Act to local staff serving in
      the Vienna representation of the Commission of the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
      European Communities?                                              Nederlanden by decision of 11 April 2001 in the case of
                                                                            Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(1) OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-168/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/76)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by decision of 11 April 2001 by
                                                                         the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
                                                                         Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht                  19 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bosal
te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001 in the case of                  Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam                         questions:
                       and Inspire Art Ltd                               1.   Does Article 52 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction
                                                                              with Article 58 thereof (now, following amendment,
                          (Case C-167/01)                                     Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48
                                                                              thereof), or any other rule of EC law, preclude a Member
                                                                              State from granting a parent company subject to tax in
                         (2001/C 200/75)                                      that Member State a deduction on costs relating to a
                                                                              holding owned by it only if the relevant subsidiary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        company makes profits which are subject to tax in
European Communities by order of 5 February 2001 by the                       the Member State in which the parent company is
Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Cantonal Court),                        established?
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kamer van Koophandel             2.   Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam and Inspire Art Ltd on the                        if, where the subsidiary company is subject to tax based
following questions:                                                          on its profits in the Member State concerned but the
                                                                              parent company is not, the relevant Member State takes
1.    Is (the new) Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 of               no account of the abovementioned costs in levying tax
      the Treaty establishing the European Community to be                    on the subsidiary company?
      interpreted as precluding the Netherlands, pursuant to
      the Wet op de formeel buitenlandse vennootschappen of
      17 December 1997, from attaching additional conditions,
      such as those laid down in Articles 2 to 5 of that law, to
      the establishment in the Netherlands of a branch of a
      company which has been set up in the United Kingdom
      with the sole aim of securing the advantages which that            Appeal brought on 19 April 2001 by Compañı́a Interna-
      offers compared to incorporation under Netherlands law,            cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) against the
      given that Netherlands law imposes stricter rules than             judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Court of
      those applying in the United Kingdom with regard to the            First Instance of the European Communities (Second
      setting-up of companies and payment for shares, and                Chamber) in Case T-186/98 between Compañı́a Interna-
      given that the Netherlands law infers that aim from the            cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) and the
      fact that the company carries on its activities entirely or                 Commission of the European Communities
      almost entirely in the Netherlands and, furthermore, does
      not have any real connection with the State in which the                                 (Case C-170/01 P)
      law under which it was formed applies?
2.    If, on a proper construction of those articles of the Treaty,                             (2001/C 200/77)
      it is held that the provisions of the Wet op de formeel
      buitenlandse vennootschappen are incompatible with                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
      them, must Article 46 of the Treaty be interpreted as              by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case F-98/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/47

         Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v European Commission
   (Case F-98/11)
   2011/C 347/90
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission to consider certain financial aid from a Member State to students in higher education to be allowances of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct that financial aid from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of such students and annulment of the decision to seek repayment of sums unduly paid.

      Form of order sought

               —

               As regards the first nine applicants, first, annulment of the decisions to deduct from the education allowances paid for their children under the Staff Regulations the amount of the grants for higher education paid to those children by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur du Grand Duché du Luxembourg (Centre for documentation and information on higher education of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ‘CEDIES’), and, second, annulment of the decisions sent to each of those applicants to recover the sums unduly paid corresponding to the allegedly undue amounts of the education allowances previously paid;

               —

               As regards the last applicant, annulment of the decision asking him to state whether his child had been given a grant by CEDIES and in the meantime suspending the education allowance for that child as of 1 December 2011, only as regards that suspension;

               —

               Pay the resulting arrears of remuneration with default interest calculated from the date the arrears fell due at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, plus two points;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/47
       Removal from the register of Case T-214/97 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-149/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/99)                                                         (1999/C 246/101)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 20 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-214/97:              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Bernard Lavorel v Commission of the European Communities.                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-149/98: Société Générale v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-302/97 and
                          T-303/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/100)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-165/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (1999/C 246/102)
By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
T-302/97 and T-303/97: AZ COM. and S.P.R.L. École de                    By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
Maîtrise Automobile v Commission of the European Com-                    of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/98:
                                                                         Grandi Molini SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.