title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-33/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste — Management of hazardous waste — Failure to provide information required under Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689 — Establishments and undertakings which carry out disposal and/or recovery of hazardous waste)

text:
C 180/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 June 2002
                           of 6 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-33/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
in Case C-360/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Land Hessen v G. Ricordi & Co.
             Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH (1)                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste
                                                                            — Management of hazardous waste — Failure to provide
                                                                            information required under Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689
                                                                            — Establishments and undertakings which carry out disposal
(Term of copyright protection — Principle of non-discrimi-                                   and/or recovery of hazardous waste)
nation on grounds of nationality — Applicability to copy-
right which arose prior to the entry into force of the EEC
                               Treaty)                                                                    (2002/C 180/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                          (2002/C 180/09)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-33/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Stovlbaek and P. Panayotopoulos) v Hellenic
                                                                            Republic (Agents: P. Skandalou and N. Dafniou): Application
                                                                            for a declaration that, by failing to send to the Commission,
                                                                            within the prescribed period, the information concerning every
                                                                            establishment or undertaking which carries out disposal and/
In Case C-360/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  or recovery of hazardous waste required under Article 8(3) of
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                     Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), in the version
Land Hessen and G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag                    resulting from Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994
GmbH, on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6             (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28), and Commission Decision 96/302/EC
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of              of 17 April 1996 establishing a format in which information
Article 12 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                     is to be provided pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,              (OJ 1996 L 116, p. 26), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                 of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
                                                                            mermans, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
The prohibition of discrimination in the first paragraph of Article 6
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of              1.     Declares that, by failing to send to the Commission, within the
Article 12 EC) is also applicable to the protection of copyright in                prescribed period, all the information required under Article 8(3)
cases where the author had died when the EEC Treaty entered into                   of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
force in the Member State of which he was a national. It precludes                 hazardous waste, in the version resulting from Council Directive
the term of protection granted by the legislation of a Member State                94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, the Hellenic Republic has failed
to the works of an author who is a national of another Member State                to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
being shorter than the term granted to the works of its own nationals.
                                                                            2.     Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-93/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Arbitrage of Belgium): Fédération Belge des Chambres Syndicales de Médecins ASBL v. Flemish Government, Government of the French Community, Council of Ministers (Directive 93/16/EEC - Specific training in general medical practice - Article 31)

text:
10.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 312/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                     qualifications referred to in Article 3 of that Directive
                                                                           must first be obtained.
                        of 16 July 1998
in Case C-93/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              2. The nature of the activities which a trainee must
the Cour d'Arbitrage of Belgium): FeÂdeÂration Belge des                   pursue in the course of his specific training in general
Chambres Syndicales de MeÂdecins ASBL v. Flemish                           medical practice in implementation of Article 31(1)(d)
Government, Government of the French Community,                            of Directive 93/16/EEC does not necessarily imply
                    Council of Ministers (1)                               that he should have obtained a diploma, certificate or
                                                                           other evidence of formal qualifications referred to in
(Directive 93/16/EEC Ð Specific training in general                        Article 3 before starting such training. It is for the
                 medical practice Ð Article 31)                            Member States to determine whether, and if so to
                         (98/C 312/01)                                     what extent, the participation of a person undergoing
                                                                           training in general medical practice in the professional
                                                                           activities and responsibilities of the persons with
                 (Language of the case: French)                            whom he works in the course of his training means
                                                                           that he should hold the diploma, certificate or other
                                                                           evidence of formal qualifications referred to in
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                           Article 3 of that Directive.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
In Case C-93/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Arbitrage of Belgium
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between FeÂdeÂration Belge des Chambres Syndi-
cales de MeÂdecins ASBL and Flemish Government,
Government of the French Community, Council of                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Ministers Ð on the interpretation of Article 31 of Council                                   (Sixth Chamber)
Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                                       of 16 July 1998
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                          in Case C-339/97: Commission of the European
qualifications (OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court                        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; G.                  Failure to transpose Directives 94/15/EC and 94/51/EC)
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                              (98/C 312/02)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which
it has ruled:                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
1. Article 31(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of                            published in the European Court Reports)
     doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas,
     certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications         In Case C-339/97: Commission of the European
     does not make access to specific training in general             Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Grand Duchy
     medical practice subject to the condition that a                 of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) Ð application for


title: Case C-229/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 24 June 2009 — Rechtsanwaltssozietät Lovells v Bayer CropScience AG

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 24 June 2009 — Rechtsanwaltssozietät Lovells v Bayer CropScience AG
   (Case C-229/09)
   2009/C 220/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Rechtsanwaltssozietät Lovells

      Defendant: Bayer CropScience AG

      Question referred

   For the purpose of the application of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, (1) must account be taken exclusively of a marketing authorisation under Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC, (2) or can a certificate also be issued pursuant to a marketing authorisation which has been granted on the basis of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.


title: Appointment of the Registrar

text:
               10.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/29

         Appointment of the Registrar
   (2006/C 34/07)
   The term of office of Mr Roger Grass, Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, expired on 9 February 2006.
   The Court of Justice, at its General Meeting on 28 June 2005, decided to renew the term of office of Mr Roger Grass in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure for the period from 10 February 2006 to 9 February 2012 inclusive.


title: Case C-142/02: Action brought on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
1.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 131/13
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The period for transposing the directive expired on 29 May
                                                                       1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       (1) OJ L 181 of 9.7.1997, p. 1.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
(1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
                                                                       Action brought on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-142/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/25)
Action brought on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                           of Germany
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-135/02)                                ties on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 131/24)
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
ties on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the               with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-                     of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre                   Member State other than that in which the qualification
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                            was obtained (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                       (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
      notify to the Commission, or failing to adopt the laws,          Pleas in law and main arguments
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 97/23/EC (1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on                  The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      concerning pressure equipment, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
      Treaty and that directive;                                       (1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)

text:
19.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 17/7
Article 87 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                   (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann               before that court between Office des produits wallons ASBL
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;           and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for               of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
which it has ruled:                                                        to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                           uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the
1.    Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87        Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
      EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, because it is charged      teur), acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
      only on direct sales of medicines by pharmaceutical laboratories,    and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
      a measure such as the tax introduced by Article 12 of Law            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
      No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding            Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
      for 1998 amounts to State aid to wholesale distributors only         which it has ruled:
      to the extent that the advantage in not being assessed to the tax
      on direct sales of medicines exceeds the additional costs that       For the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive
      they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed      77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      on them by national law.                                             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ‘subsidies directly linked
2.    Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) is to be       to the price’ must be interpreted as covering only subsidies which
      interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a tax advantage        constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods
      enjoyed by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a public     or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.
      service such as those concerned in the main proceedings in so        It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts
      far as that advantage exceeds the additional costs of performing     before it, whether or not the subsidy constitutes such consideration.
      the public service.
3.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
      EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a
      situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where
      there is no connection with the provision of services.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              (Third Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)                                                        of 13 September 2001
                       of 22 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European
                                                                              Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (1)
in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office
        des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (1)                      (Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative
                                                                           circular concerning Internet usage within the European
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable                         Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to
        amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)                   the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in
                                                                              part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
                            (2002/C 17/10)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central
In Case C-184/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes
EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi                     Priesemann, member of staff of the European Central Bank,


title: Case F-18/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 — Capidis v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 — Capidis v Commission
   (Case F-18/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/94
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 56.


title: Case C-250/04: Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/12

         Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-250/04)
   (2004/C 201/23)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), 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
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ No L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.


title: Case T-276/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/46

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)
   (Case T-276/16)
   (2016/C 251/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Viridis Pharmaceutical (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Hollnseth, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Boswelan’ — European Union trade mark No 3 381 563

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 in Case R 2837/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the declaration of the revocation of European Union trade mark No 003381563 in relation to ‘medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proper reasons for non-use of the mark;

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, in particular infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2015 in Case E-12/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)

text:
               17.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 422/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 September 2015
   in Case E-12/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)
   (2016/C 422/07)
   In Case E-12/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings


title: Case T-136/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 December 2008 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (VISIBLE WHITE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VISIBLE WHITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 December 2008 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (VISIBLE WHITE)
   (Case T-136/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VISIBLE WHITE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler, H. Harmeling and K.-U. Plath, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CMS Hasche Sigle (Cologne, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 165/2005-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between CMS Hasche Sigle and Colgate-Palmolive Co.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-202/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH& Co. v OHIM (Representation of a curved band with dotted lines)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/55

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH& Co. v OHIM (Representation of a curved band with dotted lines)
   (Case T-202/09)
   2009/C 180/103
   Language in which the application was lodged: Gemran

      Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH& Co. (Essen, Germany) (represented by C. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2009 in Case R 224/2007-4; and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a curved band with dotted lines for goods in Classes 10 and 24 (International Registration designating the European Community, No W 0881226)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of protection

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)) in finding the mark to be devoid of any distinctive character

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-105/08 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06, Van Neyghem v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/39

         Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06, Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case T-105/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenken, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06;

               —

               uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation submitted by the appellant to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing his application, on the one hand, for the annulment of the decision of the selection board in general competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition and, on the other, for damages for the material and non-material damage which he allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant pleads a misunderstanding of evidence produced before the Tribunal, namely, a copy of the written test.
   The applicant pleads, in addition, an error in the Tribunal's reasoning concerning the absence of a manifest error of assessment on the part of the president of the selection board in the comparison between the mark given to the applicant and the literal assessment in the evaluation sheet.


title: Case C-116/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Poland) — Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA, PPHU ‘ADAX’ /Ryszard Adamiak v Christianapol sp. z o.o. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Concept of ‘closure of insolvency proceedings’ — Possibility for a court before which secondary insolvency proceedings have been brought to examine the debtor’s insolvency — Possibility of opening winding-up proceedings as secondary insolvency proceedings where the main proceedings are sauvegarde proceedings)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Poland) — Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA, PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak v Christianapol sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-116/11) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Concept of ‘closure of insolvency proceedings’ - Possibility for a court before which secondary insolvency proceedings have been brought to examine the debtor’s insolvency - Possibility of opening winding-up proceedings as secondary insolvency proceedings where the main proceedings are sauvegarde proceedings)
   2013/C 26/07
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA, PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak

      Defendant: Christianapol sp. z o.o.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (2)(j) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Secondary insolvency proceedings — Right of the court having jurisdiction to open such proceedings in order to examine the debtor’s insolvency

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(2)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened to determine at which moment the closure of those proceedings occurs.

               2.

               Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings in the Member State in which the debtor has an establishment, where the main proceedings have a protective purpose. It is for the court having jurisdiction to open secondary proceedings to have regard to the objectives of the main proceedings and to take account of the scheme of the Regulation, in keeping with the principle of sincere cooperation.

               3.

               Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which an application to have secondary insolvency proceedings opened has been made cannot examine the insolvency of a debtor against which main proceedings have been opened in another Member State, even where the latter proceedings have a protective purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Election of Presidents of Chambers

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/1

         Election of Presidents of Chambers
   (2005/C 281/01)
   At a meeting on 6 October 2005, the Judges of the Court of Justice, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Sir Konrad Schiemann as President of the Fourth Chamber, Mr Makarczyk as President of the Fifth Chamber and Mr Malenovský as President of the Sixth Chamber, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2006.
   The composition of the Chambers of the Court of Justice is as follows:
   First Chamber
   Mr Jann, President,
   Sir Konrad Schiemann, Ms Colneric, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Juhász, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Second Chamber
   Mr Timmermans, President,
   Mr Makarczyk, Mr Gulmann, Mr Schintgen, Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Kūris, Mr Arestis and Mr Klučka, Judges
   Third Chamber
   Mr Rosas, President,
   Mr Malenovský, Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Mr von Bahr, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Lõhmus and Mr Ó Caoimh, Judges
   Fourth Chamber
   Sir Konrad Schiemann, President,
   Ms Colneric, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Juhász, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Makarczyk, President,
   Mr Gulmann, Mr Schintgen, Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Kūris, Mr Arestis and Mr Klučka, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Malenovský, President,
   Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Mr von Bahr, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Lõhmus and Mr Ó Caoimh, Judges


title: Case C-169/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014  — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014 — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
   (Case C-169/14)
   2014/C 175/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

      Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) which imposes on Member States the obligation to ensure that, in the interests of consumers, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers, for a procedural rule of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, to allow an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings or disapplying an unfair term and to exclude appeals in other cases, the immediate consequence of which is that whilst the party seeking enforcement may appeal when an objection to enforcement is upheld and the proceedings are brought to an end or an unfair term is disapplied[,] the consumer against whom enforcement is sought may not appeal if his objection is dismissed?

               2.

               Within the ambit of the EU legislation on the protection of consumers contained in Directive 93/13/EEC, is it compatible with the principle of the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial in accordance with the principle of equality of arms, affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) for a provision of national law of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, to allow an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings or disapplying an unfair term and to exclude appeals in other cases, the immediate consequence of which is that whilst the party seeking enforcement may appeal when an objection to enforcement is upheld and the proceedings are brought to an end or an unfair term is disapplied, the party against whom enforcement is sought may not appeal if his objection is dismissed?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-240/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Vedran Vidmar and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/13

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Vedran Vidmar and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission
   (Case C-240/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/15)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14, uphold the claims made by the appellants in their application of 1 July 2014 in the proceedings at first instance and order the European Commission to pay to the appellants all the costs of the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule afresh and order the European Commission to pay to the appellants all the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants dispute the following parts of the judgment under appeal:

               —

               paragraph 40, in which it is stated that active illegal conduct on the part of an EU institution is only one of the elements necessary for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability for damages, inasmuch as that statement by the General Court is contrary to the second paragraph of Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 May 1992 in Mulder v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90);

               —

               paragraph 47, in which, contrary to what is set out in Article 36 and Annex VII of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia (‘RC’) to the European Union (‘EU’), the commitments that were undertaken by the RC with regard to the EU during the accession negotiations were referred to incorrectly as ‘principles’, since the present case does not involve any principles but rather the 11 specific commitments agreed by the RC with the EU and which came into force on 9 December 2011;

               —

               paragraphs 48 to 52, inasmuch as Article 36 and point 1 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU came into force on 9 December 2011 when the Judicial Reform Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period 2011-2015 and the Revised Action Plan of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for Judicial Reform were in force and applicable from 15 December 2010 and 20 May 2010, respectively, and, consequently, after the repeal of those legal acts by the RC — which acts had been previously expressly authorised by the Commission in section 3 of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the RC of 10 October 2012 in which the RC was urged to adopt new legislation on enforcement — and contrary to the general principles of law on the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since with regard to the appellants the repeal of the legal acts referred to had an obvious retroactive effect in that after 9 December 2012 the RC did not adopt any new judicial reform strategy but merely a Strategy for the Development of the Judicial System for the period 2013-2018, and, therefore, the last Judicial Reform Strategy in fact adopted by the Republic of Croatia was that in force on 9 December 2011 (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 January 1974 in Louwage v Commission, 148/73, paragraphs 12 and 28; judgment of the General Court of 17 December 1998 in Embassy Limousines & Services v Parliament, T-203/96, paragraphs 74 to 88; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 May 1975 in CNTA v Commission, 74/74, paragraphs 41 to 44), it being noted that the General Court recognises, in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, in stating that ‘it may not be inferred that the Croatian authorities … were entirely free to amend the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011-2015 and the Action Plan 2010. Having regard to the provisions of the Act of Accession and, in particular, Article 36 thereof and Annex VII thereto, those authorities were obliged to comply not only with Commitment No 1, but also with all the other commitments set out in that annex’, the pertinence of the claim for damages that is set out in the application;

               —

               paragraphs 54 to 57 and 59 to 63, relating to the failure by the European Commission to fulfil the obligation, under Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation on the RC under point 3 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession to continue to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, inasmuch as it is apparent from the annexes to the application that the Commission presented information from the Ministry of Justice of the RC that was incorrect in relation to the decrease in the number of disputes and enforcement cases pending in the municipal and commercial courts in its monitoring tables for the period between 1 September 2012 and 28 February 2013, without carrying out any technical or arithmetical checks in relation to its analysis, thereby revealing a flagrant lack of care with regard to the importance of the drawing up of those tables;

               —

               paragraph 68, in that the Commission, in failing to fulfil its obligation, derived from the first and second subparagraphs of Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the commitment by the RC to establish the Croatian public enforcement officer service on 1 January 2012, also failed to fulfil its obligation, under Article 17 TEU, to ensure the application of the Treaty of Accession of the RC to the EU, which is one of the basic treaties of the EU;

               —

               paragraphs 69 to 82, inasmuch as it was in no way necessary that there be subsequent consistent and express action by the Commission in order to give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the appellants after 9 December 2012, since the appellants’ legitimate expectations had arisen before that date.


title: Case C-45/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges.mbH (Directive 2000/78/EC — Discrimination on the grounds of age — Termination of employment contract on reaching retirement age)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges.mbH
   (Case C-45/09) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Discrimination on the grounds of age - Termination of employment contract on reaching retirement age)
   2010/C 346/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gisela Rosenbladt

      Defendant: Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges.mbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination based on age — Provision of a collective agreement declared generally applicable, providing for the automatic termination of the employment contract on the employee's attaining the age of 65 years, irrespective of the economic, social or demographic situation or the actual situation on the employment market

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as Paragraph 10(5) of the General Law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz), under which clauses on automatic termination of employment contracts on the ground that the employee has reached the age of retirement are considered to be valid, in so far as, first, that provision is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market and, second, the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The implementation of that authorisation by means of a collective agreement is not, as such, exempt from any review by the courts but, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1) of that directive, must itself pursue a legitimate aim in an appropriate and necessary manner;

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a measure such as the automatic termination of employment contracts of employees who have reached retirement age, set at 65, provided for by Paragraph 19(8) of the framework collective agreement for employees in the commercial cleaning sector (Allgemeingültiger Rahmentarifvertrag für die gewerblichen Beschäftigten in der Gebäudereinigung);

               3.

               Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from declaring a collective agreement containing a clause on the automatic termination of employment contracts, like that at issue in the main proceedings, to be of general application, provided that it does not deprive employees who have reached retirement age of the protection from discrimination on grounds of age conferred on them by those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-249/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Pau — France) — Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect his interests ﾔ Return decision — Right to be heard before the return decision is issued — Extent of that right)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Pau — France) — Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques
   (Case C-249/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect his interests - Return decision - Right to be heard before the return decision is issued - Extent of that right))
   (2015/C 046/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Pau

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Khaled Boudjlida

      Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

      Operative part of the judgment

   The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as extending to the right of an illegally staying third-country national to express, before the adoption of a return decision concerning him, his point of view on the legality of his stay, on the possible application of Articles 5 and 6(2) to (5) of that directive and on the detailed arrangements for his return.
   However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a competent national authority to warn the third-country national, prior to the interview arranged with a view to that adoption, that it is contemplating adopting a return decision with respect to him, or to disclose to him the information on which it intends to rely as justification for that decision, or to allow him a period of reflection before seeking his observations, provided that the third-country national has the opportunity effectively to present his point of view on the subject of the illegality of his stay and the reasons which might, under national law, justify that authority refraining from adopting a return decision.
   The right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an illegally staying third-country national may have recourse, prior to the adoption by the competent national authority of a return decision concerning him, to a legal adviser in order to have the benefit of the latter’s assistance when he is heard by that authority, provided that the exercise of that right does not affect the due progress of the return procedure and does not undermine the effective implementation of Directive 2008/115.
   However, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115, and, in particular, Article 6 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to bear the costs of that assistance by providing free legal aid.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-297/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/11

         Action brought on 14 June 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-297/11)
   2011/C 238/16
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Chatzigiannis and A. Margelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission requests that the Court:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not having produced river basin management plans (either for those river basin districts falling wholly within its territory or for international river basin districts) by 22 December 2009, and by not having sent copies of the river basin management plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13(1), (2), (3) and (6) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Further, by not having commenced a procedure for public information and the related consultations in connection with the draft river basin management plans by 22 December 2008, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, under Articles 13(1), (2), (3) and (6) and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Member States were obliged to produce, by 22 December 2009, river basin management plans (either for those river basin districts falling wholly within their territory or for international river basin districts) and to send copies of those plans to the Commission by 22 March 2010.
   On the information currently provided by the Hellenic Republic to the Commission it appears that the Hellenic Republic has not yet produced any river basin management plan (either for those river basin districts falling wholly within its territory or for international river basin districts) and consequently has not sent any copy to the Commission. The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil both its obligations under Article 13(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the directive and its obligations under Article 15(1) of the directive.
   Secondly, under Article 14(1)(c) of the directive, Member States were obliged to make available the draft river basin management plans for public consultation by no later than 22 December 2008.
   On the information currently provided by the Hellenic Republic to the Commission, it appears that the procedure concerned has not yet commenced. The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1


title: Case C-218/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 6 TEU — Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law — Italian nationals having organised the illegal entry into Italy of Romanian nationals — Acts carried out before the accession of Romania to the European Union — Effect of Romania’s accession on the criminal offence of facilitation of illegal immigration — Implementation of EU law — Jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others
      (Case C-218/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 6 TEU - Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law - Italian nationals having organised the illegal entry into Italy of Romanian nationals - Acts carried out before the accession of Romania to the European Union - Effect of Romania’s accession on the criminal offence of facilitation of illegal immigration - Implementation of EU law - Jurisdiction of the Court))
      (2016/C 441/02)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso

         Parties in the main proceedings

      Gianpaolo Paoletti, Umberto Castaldi, Domenico Faricelli, Antonio Angelucci, Mauro Angelucci, Antonio D’Ovidio, Camillo Volpe, Giampaolo Canzano, Raffaele Di Giovanni, Antonio Della Valle

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 6 TEU and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a State to the European Union does not preclude another Member State imposing a criminal penalty on persons who committed, before the accession, the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration for nationals of the first State.

         (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case C-412/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by order of that Court of 29 September 2003 in the case of Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB against Riksskatteverket

text:
C 289/14               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                  Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of
by order of that Court of 29 September 2003 in the case                    the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
  of Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB against Riksskatteverket
                                                                                (Case C-415/03)
                          (Case C-412/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/28)
                         (2003/C 289/27)
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
                                                                           ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by D. Triantafillou and J.L. Buendia Sierra, of its
                                                                           Legal Service.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 29 September 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2003, for a                    —     declare that, by failing to take, within the time-limit laid
preliminary ruling in the case of Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB                      down, all the measures necessary for repayment of the
against Riksskatteverket on the following questions:                             aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the
                                                                                common market (except the IKA (Social Security Insti-
                                                                                tution) contributions) in accordance with Article 3 of the
                                                                                Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on aid
1.    In the event that the Regeringsrätten finds, when the case                 granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under
      is decided, that the company’s supplies are supplies of                    document number C(2002) 4831) or, in any event, by
      goods, are Article 2 and Article 5(6) of the Sixth Value                   failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken
      Added Tax Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding                    pursuant to Article 4, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      provisions in the legislation of a Member State under                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision
      which withdrawal of goods means that a taxable person                      and the EC Treaty;
      transfers goods to a third party for a consideration less
      than the purchase value of the goods or of similar goods
      or, if no such value is available, the cost price.                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2.    In the event that the Regeringsrätten finds, when the
      case is decided, that the company’s supplies are food                Pleas in law and main arguments
      dispensing services, are Article 2 and Article 6(2)(b) of
      the Sixth Value Added Tax Directive to be interpreted as
      precluding provisions in the legislation of a Member State
      under which withdrawal of goods means that a taxable                 The Commission decision obliges Greece to take all the
      person performs, arranges performance or in some other               necessary measures so as to recover from Olympic Airways
      way provides a service for himself or his staff for private          both the sum of EUR 41 000 000 (which relates to the
      purposes or for other non-commercial purposes, where                 restructuring aid set out in Article 1 of the decision) and the
      the service is provided for a consideration less than the            aid referred to in Article 2 of the decision, and to inform the
      cost of performing the service.                                      Commission within two months of the measures adopted.
                                                                           That period for compliance with the decision expired on
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the               13 February 2003.
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           In accordance with settled case-law, the only justification
                                                                           which may be put forward by a Member State in the context
                                                                           of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC is that it is absolutely
                                                                           impossible to implement the decision properly. However, on
                                                                           expiry of the abovementioned time-limit, the Greek authorities
                                                                           refused to implement the decision, invoking other grounds.


title: Case T-305/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Italmobiliare v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Principle of sound administration  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Italmobiliare v Commission
   (Case T-305/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, G. Rizza and M. Piergiovanni, and subsequently by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and G. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Malaguti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Italmobiliare SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 August 1998 in Case T-132/97: Michael Collins v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Probationary officials - Daily subsistence allowance - Period in respect of which granted - Case manifestly lacking any foundation)

text:
C 327/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
represented by Ramón MareÂs Salvador, of the Madrid Bar,           represented by Nicholas Forwood QC Ð application for
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   annulment of a decision of the Committee of the Regions
Chambers of Lorang & AssocieÂs, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v               refusing to pay the applicant the daily subsistence
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana                allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the
María Alves Vieira and Blanca VilaÂ Costa) Ð application           Staff Regulations for the entire period of his probation
under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC                plus one month Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Treaty, first, for annulment of competition notices EUR/           Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts
LA/97 and EUR/LA/98 of 1 March 1996 (OJ C 62 AL,                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
1.3.1996) and, second, for an order requiring the                  order on 20 August 1998, the operative part of which is
Commission to modify its guides for candidates taking              as follows:
part in interinstitutional competitions or in open
competitions, in particular the guide annexed to the
notices of competition, and any other publication relating
to access to the Community public service, in such a way           1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any
as to include ingenería teÂcnica' (technical engineering)              foundation in law.
amongst the national educational qualifications required
for admission to open competitions' Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,               2. The parties shall each bear their own expenses.
Registrar, made an order on 20 July 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                                of 19 August 1998
                                                                   in Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                   Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 327/45)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 20 August 1998
in Case T-132/97: Michael Collins v Committee of the                              (Language of the case: French)
              Regions of the European Union (1)
(Probationary officials Ð Daily subsistence allowance Ð
Period in respect of which granted Ð Case manifestly               In Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert, an official of the
                   lacking any foundation)                         Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Merelbeke (Belgium), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of
                        (98/C 327/44)                              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Christine
               (Language of the case: English)                     Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Commission of 26 August 1996 rejecting
                                                                   the applicant's request for a review of his classification in
                                                                   grade Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
In Case T-132/97, Michael Collins, an official of the              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and P.
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
residing in Brussels, represented by Vassilis N. Akritidis, of     19 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
the Athens Bar, and Jonathan R. Branton, Solicitor, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-104/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External Community transit procedure — Customs authorities — Procedures for collecting import duties — Time-limits — Non-compliance — Community own resources — Making available — Time-limit — Non-compliance — Default interest — Member State concerned — Default on payment)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-104/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 - External Community transit procedure - Customs authorities - Procedures for collecting import duties - Time-limits - Non-compliance - Community own resources - Making available - Time-limit - Non-compliance - Default interest - Member State concerned - Default on payment)
   (2005/C 132/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-104/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Wilms) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W. D. Plessing and R. Stüwe, assisted by D. Sellner), supported by Kingdom of Belgium, (Agent: A. Snoecx) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 March 2002 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by making own resources available to the Community too late, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure and Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, read together with Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Communities' own resources;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case F-135/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/24

         Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency
   (Case F-135/11)
   2012/C 65/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract;

               —

               Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally;

               —

               Order EMA to pay the costs.


               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/1

         2011/C 30/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 13, 15.1.2011

      Past publications

      OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

      OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

      OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

      OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

      OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-400/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten

text:
8.2.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/5
The determination of the time when the fixing (finding) should          The applicant claims that the Court should:
have taken place makes it possible to calculate the period
within which the own resources in question should have been
credited to the Commission’s account, in accordance with                —     Declare that
Article 10 of Regulation No 1552/89. Failure to comply within
that period triggers the obligation to pay default interest
pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, an obli-                     (a)   by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
gation which, according to the case-law of the Court, arises                        with Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/
without its being necessary to examine the reasons for the                          442/EEC ( 1), amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2),
failure to comply within that period.                                               inasmuch as it failed to take the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste from the pig farm located in ‘El
                                                                                Pago de la Media Legua’ is recovered or disposed of
( 1) OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9.
                                                                                without endangering human health and without
( 2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                                harming the environment and insofar as the farm
                                                                                was not covered by the authorisation required under
                                                                                the directive and by failing to carry out the requisite
                                                                                regular checks in respect of such establishments;
                                                                              (b) by failing to carry out an impact assessment prior to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                                the construction or modification of the project,
gericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case
                                                                                contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2)
of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                                of Council Directive 85/337/EEC ( 3), either in its
      represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten
                                                                                original wording or as amended by Directive 97/11/
                                                                                EC (4);
                          (Case C-400/02)
                           (2003/C 31/08)                                     (c)   by failing to carry out the requisite hydrological
                                                                                studies in the area affected by pollution, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Articles 3(b), 5(1) and 7 of Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive 80/68/EEC (5);
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                     (d) by not subjecting urban waste-water from the
the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,                      agglomeration of Vera to treatment which is more
represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten (Local Office                        stringent than that described in Article 4, as required
for Defence Expenditure) on the following question:                                 under Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/
                                                                                EEC ( 6);
Is Article 39 EC infringed by the fact that for the purposes of
calculating the basis of assessment of interim assistance in a
                                                                              (e)   by failing to declare the Rambla de Mojácar a
case arising under Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the collective agreement
                                                                                vulnerable area, contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4)
on social security account must be taken of the notional
                                                                                of Directive 91/676/EEC (7);
German tax on emoluments (second sentence of Para-
graph 4(3)(b) of that collective agreement) if the former
employee lives and is subject to tax abroad?
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned directives; and
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Spain
                          (Case C-416/02)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 31/09)
                                                                        —     Infringements (a) to (c) relate to the construction and
                                                                              running of an intensive pig farm situated in ‘El pago de la
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     Media Legua’, in the municipal district of Vera, in the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                    province of Almeria. The Spanish authorities admit that
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        that pig farm is illegal and is not covered by a municipal
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                    licence, so that it must be deemed not to have the
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           requisite authorisation required by Article 9 of Directive


title: Case T-304/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/47

         Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)
   (Case T-304/17)
   (2017/C 231/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘5000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 555

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 655/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: Case T-328/11: Action brought on 21 June 2011 — Leifheit v OHIM (EcoPerfect)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/51

         Action brought on 21 June 2011 — Leifheit v OHIM (EcoPerfect)
   (Case T-328/11)
   2011/C 269/113
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by G. Hasselblatt, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 (Case R 1658/2010-1) and admit for publication in its entirety the Community trade mark ‘EcoPerfect’ (application No 8708745);

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EcoPerfect’ for goods in class 21 — application No 8708745.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the Community trade mark applied for, ‘EcoPerfect’, is not descriptive of the goods in class 21, nor does it lack any distinctive character.


title: Case T-437/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Brink’s Security Luxembourg v Commission (Public services contracts — Community tender procedure — Security and surveillance of the Commission’s buildings in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Equal treatment — Access to documents — Effective judicial protection — Duty to give reasons — Transfer of undertaking — Action for damages)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Brink’s Security Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-437/05) (1)

   (Public services contracts - Community tender procedure - Security and surveillance of the Commission’s buildings in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Equal treatment - Access to documents - Effective judicial protection - Duty to give reasons - Transfer of undertaking - Action for damages)
   2009/C 256/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brink’s Security Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Point and G. Dauphin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Manhaeve, M. Šimerdová and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: G4S Security Services SA, formerly Group 4 Falck — Surveillance and Security Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Molitor, P. Lopes Da Silva, N. Cambonie and N. Bogelmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, an action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 30 November 2005 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (provision of building surveillance and security services); the Commission Decision of 30 November 2005 to award the contract to another tenderer; an alleged implied Commission Decision refusing to withdraw its two previous decisions and two of its letters, dated 7 and 14 December 2005, responding to the applicant’s requests for information. Second, an action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission Decision of 14 December 2005, rejecting the request that the composition of the evaluation committee in call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL be communicated to the applicant;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for annulment as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the action for damages;

               4.

               Orders Brink’s Security Luxembourg SA to pay, apart from its own costs, half of the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities and by G4S Security Services SA, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs;

               6.

               Orders G4S Security Services to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case F-72/08: Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Ketselidis v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/51

         Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Ketselidis v Commission
   (Case F-72/08)
   (2008/C 272/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michalis Ketselidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the claim made by the applicant for revision of the calculation of pension annuities to be taken into account for transfer of his pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implicit decision rejecting the claim for revision of the calculation of pension annuities to be taken into account for transfer of his pension rights to the Community scheme;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.