title: Case C-509/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG (Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 — Rail passengers’ rights and obligations — Article 17 — Compensation in the event of a delay — Excluded in the event of force majeure — Whether permissible — First subparagraph of Article 30(1) — Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG
   (Case C-509/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Rail passengers’ rights and obligations - Article 17 - Compensation in the event of a delay - Excluded in the event of force majeure - Whether permissible - First subparagraph of Article 30(1) - Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation)
   2013/C 344/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG

      Intervening parties: Schienen-Control Kommission, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 17 and the first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14) — Conditions governing compensation — Whether exclusion of compensation is permissible in cases of force majeure — Whether the body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may replace the contractual terms which do not meet the criteria set out in that regulation with terms which are consistent with those criteria

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may not, in the absence of any national provision to that effect, impose upon a railway undertaking whose compensation terms do not meet the criteria set out at Article 17 of that regulation the specific content of those terms.

               2.

               Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking is not entitled to include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure or to one of the reasons set out at Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-351/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GATEWIT — Earlier EU figurative mark wit software — Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)
   (Case T-351/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GATEWIT - Earlier EU figurative mark wit software - Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 104/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha and A. Bertrand, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista and C. Tomás Pedro, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1059/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel and Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação.

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the purposes of the present proceedings and by Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-23/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2010 — ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Earlier mark BLUE — Word sign ‘Ecoblue’ — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/11

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2010 — ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA
   (Case C-23/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Earlier mark BLUE - Word sign ‘Ecoblue’ - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs)
   2010/C 134/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ecoblue AG (represented by: C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 in Case T-281/07 ecoblue AG v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘Ecoblue’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 against Decision R 844/2006-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 April 2007 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which refused registration of that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘BLUE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38, and of other Community word marks containing the word ‘BLUE’

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               ecoblue AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.04.2009.


title: Case F-36/10: Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Rapone v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Rapone v Commission
   (Case F-36/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Chiara Rapone (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision by which EPSO refused to register the applicant’s application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision refusing registration of the applicant’s new application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW, which was confirmed in a communication from EPSO of 12 April 2010.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-264/09: Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/36

         Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and European Commission Delegation to Morocco
   (Case T-264/09)
   2009/C 220/76
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare, pursuant to Article 232 EC, that the EU Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission failed to act;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 288 EC, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant and order them, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant compensation for the damage suffered by it in the sum of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present case operates in various sectors of the industrial market. Since 2002, Tecnoprocess has operated in the market relating to procedures managed by EuropeAid on behalf of the Commission for the allocation of projects for the grant of external aid to developing countries financed by the EU budget or the European Development Fund. With the present action, the applicant seeks to submit for review by the Court the conduct of the defendants in connection with the implementation of the following contracts:

               —

               EuropeAid Contract 1144205/D/S/MA (marché 14/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — RISTORAZIONE;

               —

               EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 15/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO;

               —

               EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 16/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO; and

               —

               EuropeAid Contract 12088/D/S/MA — Centre Assistance Technique des Industriels des Equipements pour véchicules (Cetiev) Lots 3 and 6.

         The purpose of the first three contracts, which were concluded as part of the MEDA 1 programme, was the provision of equipment and accessories for the restauration and canteen services of the Office de la Formation professionnelle et de la Promotion du Travail (OFPPT) in Rabat.
   In implementing those contracts, the OFPPT refused to countersign acknowledgments of receipt for goods, even though it used the products at issue, which were properly supplied by the applicant.
   Similar difficulties were encountered in relation to the fourth contract, which was concluded as part of the MEDA 2 programme and related to the provision of highly specialised machinery which was intended for the purpose of carrying out tests on filters for motor vehicles.
   According to the applicant, the failure to act on the part of the defendants, which consists in their failure to find a solution that could satisfy the applicant’s interests in response to the serious shortcomings in the performance of the contracts in question, is such as to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.
   The applicant also alleges in this connection infringement of Article 56 of the Finance Regulation, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and proportionality and the right to confidentiality.


title: Case C-242/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Enel Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (Directive 2003/54/EC — Internal market in electricity — Electricity generating installations essential to the operation of the electricity system — Obligation to submit tenders on the national electricity exchange market in accordance with the limits and criteria laid down by the electricity transmission and distribution system operator — Dispatching and balancing service — Public service obligations)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Enel Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas
   (Case C-242/10) (1)

   (Directive 2003/54/EC - Internal market in electricity - Electricity generating installations essential to the operation of the electricity system - Obligation to submit tenders on the national electricity exchange market in accordance with the limits and criteria laid down by the electricity transmission and distribution system operator - Dispatching and balancing service - Public service obligations)
   2012/C 49/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

      Intervener: Terna rete elettrica nazionale SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 23 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — National legislation requiring electricity producers, when submitting bids for the supply of electricity, to comply with rules laid down by the company responsible for the management of the electricity transmission and distribution grid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC and, in particular, Article 3(2) and Article 11(2) and (6) of that directive must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of reducing the price of electricity in the interests of the end consumer and of ensuring the security of the electricity system, imposes on operators which own installations or groups of installations which are considered, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the national regulatory authority, to be essential in order to meet the requirements of the demand for electricity of dispatching services, the obligation to submit bids on the national electricity markets in accordance with conditions pre-determined by that authority, provided that that legislation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective which it pursues. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that condition is met in the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-621/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — SinnLeffers v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/19

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — SinnLeffers v Commission
   (Case T-621/11)
   2012/C 39/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SinnLeffers GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: C. Rupp and H. Wunderlich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275 final, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and ex NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU due to absence of selectivity of the measure

                           —

                           Misjudgement of the relevant reference system: the applicant submits in this connection that the Commission took the wrong reference system as its basis in determining the selectivity of the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax). The applicant takes the view that it follows from the use of the principle of net profit or loss as the applicable reference system, that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is not an exception to the reference system, but rather that it restores the reference system.

                           —

                           Failure to have regard to the fact that general rules are not selective: the applicant submits in that regard that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is also not selective having regard to the fact that the rule in that statute is of general validity.

                           —

                           Failure to have regard to the justification for the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the German corporation tax system: the applicant submits in this connection that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is in any event justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the German corporation tax system with reference to the applicable reference system of the principle of net profit or loss as the expression of the ability-to-pay principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of superior law — infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations
               The applicant submits in that regard inter alia, that the Commission did not at any time before the initiation of a formal investigation procedure against the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG express doubts relating to State aid law in respect of the original provision in Paragraph 8(4)(3) of the KStG or comparable provisions of other Member States. On the basis of that conduct on the part of the Commission in the past, the applicant was not in a position, even applying the greatest of care on the part of a prudent and alert economic operator, to foresee the contested decision. The applicant should therefore have been able to rely on the correctness of the new provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG.


title: Case T-347/05: Action brought on  12 September 2005  — Procter & Gamble/OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/30

         Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Procter & Gamble/OHIM
   (Case T-347/05)
   (2005/C 296/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyers]

      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 OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 1182/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 13 July 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a green five-petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 683 473

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the designated goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-138/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — DP grup EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia Mitnitsi (Customs union — Customs declaration — Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration — Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted — Consequences for penal measures)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — ‘DP grup’ EOOD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
   (Case C-138/10) (1)

   (Customs union - Customs declaration - Acceptance by the customs authorities of that declaration - Invalidation of a customs declaration which has already been accepted - Consequences for penal measures)
   2011/C 319/10
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘DP grup’ EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 4(5), 8(1), first indent, 62, 63 and 68 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Acceptance by the customs authority of a customs declaration made in writing by the person liable to pay duty — Treatment of such acceptance as equivalent to an administrative decision open to judicial review — Acceptance of the declaration on a provisional basis pending definitive verification of the information provided therein by means of an expert report for the purpose of confirming the tariff code — Delimitation of the review conducted by the customs authority at the time of that verification

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of European Union law in customs matters must be interpreted as meaning that a declarant cannot request a court to annul a customs declaration made by it when that declaration has been accepted by the customs authorities. By contrast, under the conditions laid down in Article 66 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, that declarant may request those authorities to invalidate that declaration, even after they have released the goods. At the conclusion of their assessment, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-450/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg by order of that court of  11 November 2005  in Peter Wachter v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg by order of that court of 11 November 2005 in Peter Wachter v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Case C-450/05 (1))
   (2006/C 74/05)

      (Language of the case: German)

   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) of 11 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2005 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Peter Wachter and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund on the following question:
   Are point 83 (2) Germany-Austria (e) of Parts A and B of Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) and point D Germany (1) of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with higher-ranking European law, in particular the requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39 EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?

      (1)  Joined with Joined Cases C-396/05 and C-419/05, notice regarding the question referred published in OJ 2006 C22, S.6.

      (2)  In the version applicable until the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 on 5.5.2005.

      (3)  OJ 1971 L 149, S.2.


title: Case C-598/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani v Polixeni Guletsou (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical question referred — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 7(2)(c) — Applicability of social security conventions between Member States — Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State — Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State — Application for grant of an old-age benefit — Refusal)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/10

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani v Polixeni Guletsou
   (Case C-598/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical question referred - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))
   (2015/C 213/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani

      Defendant: Polixeni Guletsou

      Operative part of the order

   Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement, relating to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States having had the status of political refugees in the territory of the other signatory State, concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and not appearing in Annex III to that regulation, does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and that regulation entered into force.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-223/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 —Ntouvas v ECDC (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service — Refusal of access — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination — Overriding public interest)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 —Ntouvas v ECDC
   (Case T-223/12) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Commission’s Internal Audit Service - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination - Overriding public interest))
   (2015/C 007/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented: by E. Mylonas, and V. Kolias, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented: initially by R. Trott, and subsequently by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECDC of 27 March 2012 (DIR-12-0636-MSrukr) refusing the applicant access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 27 March 2012 (DIR-12-0636-MSrukr) refusing Mr Ioannis Ntouvas access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission;

               2)

               Orders the ECDC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case T-278/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — United Kingdom v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Butter — Check of the quantity of product obtained — On-the-spot checks — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-278/06) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Butter - Check of the quantity of product obtained - On-the-spot checks - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97)
   (2009/C 19/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: E. O'Neill and subsequently by I. Rao, Agents, and by H. Mercer, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenses incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the sector of concentrated butter in the food industry.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-440/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC SEMTEX SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Failure to provide a factual description — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC SEMTEX SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-440/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Failure to provide a factual description - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 63/33
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC SEMTEX SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Secția Bacău Secția Comercială, Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State — Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU — Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-85/02: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
20.4.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 97/9
Action brought on 5 March 2002 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   the European Communities against the French Republic
                           of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-85/02)
                         (Case C-74/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 97/18)
                         (2002/C 97/17)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           for service in Luxembourg.
ties on 5 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
in the Legal Service of the Commission of the European                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the Court should:
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal         (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    administrative measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                             point 12 in Annex II to Directive 91/439/EC of 29 July
                                                                             1991 (1), or at any rate by failing to notify those measures
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply             (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      with Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
      availability of consumer information on fuel economy             Pleas in law and main arguments
      and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
      passenger cars (1), or at any rate to notify the same to
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
      the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                       advanced in Case C-74/02; the time-limit for transposition
      infringed its obligations under Article 12(1) of that
                                                                       expired on 1 July 1996.
      directive;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            (1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences
                                                                           (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of directives pursuant to the third                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/01 (1)
paragraph of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC is such as to require Member States to whom                                         (2002/C 97/19)
directives are addressed to transpose the provisions thereof
into national law so as to give full practical effect to them
before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition. The time-       By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
limit prescribed in Article 12 of the directive expired on             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
18 January 2001.                                                       from the register of Case C-318/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma):
                                                                       Informatica e Telecomunicazioni I & T SpA v Direzione
(1) OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16.                                               Regionale delle Entrate per il Lazio.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case T-78/16: Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/40

         Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament
   (Case T-78/16)
   (2016/C 118/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sartour (Beveren, Belgium) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well founded.

         Consequently:

               —

               Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels;

               —

               Annul the Parliament’s decision, date unknown, to award the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle governing the qualitative selection criteria of the minimum thresholds to be applied by the service providers as regards their turnover, the competition principle and the principle of equality of tenderers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons for the acts of the EU institutions.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment in and openness of public procurement, manifest error of assessment, equal treatment of tenderers and free competition between tenderers.


title: Judgment of the Court 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma): Elide Gottardo v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC — Old-age benefits — Social security convention concluded between the Italian Republic and the Swiss Confederation — Refusal to take account of periods of insurance completed by a French national in Switzerland)

text:
C 84/22                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6.4.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          15 January 2002                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-55/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               30 January 2002
the Tribunale ordinario di Roma): Elide Gottardo v
    Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (1)
                                                                            in Case C-103/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 12 EC and
39(2) EC — Old-age benefits — Social security convention
concluded between the Italian Republic and the Swiss
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Confederation — Refusal to take account of periods of
                                                                            Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
  insurance completed by a French national in Switzerland)
                                                                                and of wild fauna and flora — Protection of species)
                           (2002/C 84/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/35)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-55/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary                In Case C-103/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 (Agents: R. Wainwright and P. Panayotopoulos) v Hellenic
Elide Gottardo and Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale              Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and P. Skandalou): Appli-
(INPS) on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC,                cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in the
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                alternative, to notify to the Commission, within the prescribed
F. Macken and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-                 time-limit, the requisite measures to establish and implement
mann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón,                 an effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                           caretta on Zakinthos (Greece) so as to avoid any disturbance
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-                       of the species during its breeding period and any activity which
Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given             might bring about deterioration or destruction of its breeding
a judgment on 15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                       sites, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under the EC Treaty and under Article 12(1)(b) and (d)
                                                                            of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
                                                                            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
The competent social security authorities of one Member State are           (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
required, pursuant to their Community obligations under                     of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rappor-
Article 39 EC, to take account, for purposes of acquiring the right to      teur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
old-age benefits, of periods of insurance completed in a non-member         Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett,
country by a national of a second Member State in circumstances             Administrator, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in
where, under identical conditions of contribution, those competent          which it:
authorities will take into account such periods where they have been
completed by nationals of the first Member State pursuant to a
bilateral international convention concluded between that Member
                                                                            1.    Declares that by failing to take, within the prescribed time-
State and the non-member country.
                                                                                limit, the requisite measures to establish and implement an
                                                                                effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta
                                                                                caretta on Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the
                                                                                species during its breeding period and any activity which might
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                        bring about deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
                                                                                21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
                                                                                wild fauna and flora;


title: Case F-69/07: Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/29

         Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission
   (Case F-69/07)
   (2007/C 235/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: U (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in so far as they provide for, first, the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) and in Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), and, secondly, the duration of the contract to be the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after having worked for the Commission from 1 May 2001 to 15 September 2006 as a member of the local staff and member of the auxiliary staff under 14 successive separate fixed-term contracts of employment, was recruited as a member of the contract staff for the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009. Having established during the medical visit prior to recruitment that the applicant was suffering from a sickness, the Appointing Authority applied the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS and Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant first submits that by limiting the duration of her contract as a member of the contract staff, the Commission infringed the principle of stability of the employment relationship such as it follows from the general principles of law relating to the protection of workers. In so far as it is necessary, she pleads that Article 88 of the CEOS is unlawful.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the proviso clause not to grant her guaranteed benefits in respect of invalidity or death fails to take account of the scope of Article 100 of the CEOS, inasmuch as the administration is imposing on her a new exclusion period of 5 years even though she has been in the Commission's service since 1 May 2001. In so far as it is necessary, she pleads that Article 100 of the CEOS is unlawful.


title: Case T-276/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Compagnie maritime belge v Commission (Competition — Abuse of collective dominant position — Shipping conference — Decision imposing a fine on the basis of an earlier decision annulled in part by the Court of Justice — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Reasonable time-limit — Rights of the defence — Legal certainty — Force of res judicata )

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Compagnie maritime belge v Commission
   (Case T-276/04) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of collective dominant position - Shipping conference - Decision imposing a fine on the basis of an earlier decision annulled in part by the Court of Justice - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Reasonable time-limit - Rights of the defence - Legal certainty - Force of res judicata)
   (2008/C 209/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie maritime belge SA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, P. Hellström and F. Amato, then by É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/480/EC of 30 April 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Cases COMP/D2/32.448 and 32.450) (summarised in OJ 2005 L 171, p. 28), imposing a fine on the applicant for alleged abuses of a collective dominant position engaged in by the Cewal conference and, in the alternative, the reduction of that fine.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Compagnie maritime belge SA to pay two-thirds of its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to pay one-third of its own costs and one-third of the costs incurred by Compagnie maritime belge.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case F-139/14: Action brought on 17 December 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/46

         Action brought on 17 December 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-139/14)
   (2015/C 089/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to carry over to 2013 days of leave not taken by the applicant in 2012 due to illness and the claim for damages in respect of material and non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of 12 February 2014 and of 15 September 2014, and,

               —

               Annul, as appropriate, the pension statement for April 2013;

               —

               Order the Parliament to compensate the applicant for the harm evaluated at EUR 26  677,56;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-59/05: Action brought on 2 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/30

         Action brought on 2 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-59/05)
   (2005/C 106/63)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture), to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant company filed a bid in response to the Commission's call for tenders AGRI-2004-S4FA-I3-01 for the provision of information system development, maintenance and support services for the DG Agriculture Financial Information Systems (1). By the contested decision this bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.
   In support of its application for annulment of that decision the applicant claims first of all the Commission violated the Financial Regulation (2) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive 92/50 (3) by using evaluation criteria that were extremely vague. The applicant further contends that the Commission failed, in response to the applicant's questions, to explain in a clear and objective manner what precisely was requested of the tenderers.
   The applicant further considers that the Commission committed manifest errors of appreciation in its evaluation of the applicant's tender. In this respect the applicant contends that the Evaluation Committee did not correctly evaluate the offers, failing to take into account that contrary to the applicant both members of the successful consortium had extremely limited experience. The applicant also maintains that its own bid was more advantageous.
   The applicant also invokes a violation, by the Commission, of its obligation, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons and a failure to provide pertinent information requested by the applicant on the grounds for the rejection of its bid. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of good administration and diligence by acting with significant delay and by not offering adequate answers to the applicant's requests for information prior to the submission of the bids.

      (1)  OJ 2004 S 59-050031.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24/07/1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-281/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Compensatory aid for banana producers — Irregularities in quality controls — Type of financial correction applied — Proportionality)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-281/06) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Compensatory aid for banana producers - Irregularities in quality controls - Type of financial correction applied - Proportionality)
   2009/C 141/77
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12) in so far as it provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-318/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Articles 49 TFEU and 52 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public transport by rail and by road — Bus transport on urban public transport lines — Carrier established in another Member State and operating through a branch — Requirement to obtain special authorisation — Discretionary power of the competent authority — Public service contract)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/8

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s. v Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje
   (Case C-318/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 49 TFEU and 52 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public transport by rail and by road - Bus transport on urban public transport lines - Carrier established in another Member State and operating through a branch - Requirement to obtain special authorisation - Discretionary power of the competent authority - Public service contract))
   (2015/C 320/11)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slovenská autobusová doprava Trnava a.s.

      Defendant: Krajský úřad Olomouckého kraje

      Operative part of the order

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State requiring only foreign carriers which have a branch office in that Member State to obtain special authorisation issued on a discretionary basis by the competent authorities in order to operate an urban public transport service by road in the territory of that Member State alone.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-146/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 180/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 April 2002
                         of 18 April 2002
                                                                            in Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola v European Invest-
                                                                                ment Bank
in Case T-238/00: International and European Public
Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of                      (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a
the European Central Bank (USE) v European Central                                         measure — Urgency — Absence)
                              Bank (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/42)
(European Central Bank — Refusal to amend the conditions                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
of employment and the rules applicable to the staff —
     Unions — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola, resident in Rome,
                                                                            represented by L. Isola, lawyer, against European Investment
                                                                            Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —
                          (2002/C 180/41)                                   application for suspension of the operation of the decision of
                                                                            the European Investment Bank dismissing the applicant — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                   (Language of the case: German)                           29 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-238/00: International and European Public Services
Organisation (IPSO), established in Frankfurt am Main, Ger-
many, and the Union of Staff of the European Central Bank
(USE), established in Frankfurt am Main, represented by
Christian Roth, Tanja Raab-Rhein and Michael Roth, Rechtsan-                Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &
wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                   Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in
European Central Bank (Agents: J. M. Fernández Martı́n,                          the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Sánchez Santiago and B. Wägenbaur) — application for
annulment of the decision of the Vice-President of the                                               (Case T-146/02)
European Central Bank of 7 July 2000 refusing to consider the
requests submitted by the applicants seeking the amendment                                           (2002/C 180/43)
of certain provisions of the conditions of employment of the
staff at the European Central Bank and of the rules applicable                                (Language of the case: German)
to the staff of the European Central Bank — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 April 2002, the operative part of which is as                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
follows:                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
                                                                            2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
                                                                            Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
                                                                            U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
                                                                            lawyers.
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
      by the defendant.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                      Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 724/
                                                                                1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
                                                                                number 573 725, in so far as it relates to goods in
                                                                                Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                                following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/25
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 748/
Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the                   1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
                              shape of an upright bottle —                    number 573 303, in so far as it relates to goods in
                              application No 573 725                          Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                              following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;
Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                              and services: goods in Class 32
                              (fruit drinks and fruit juices)           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
before the Board of           iner
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                    No 40/94 (1)                        Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the
                              —     No need to refuse the mark                                        shape of an upright bottle —
                                    claimed registration                                              application No 573 303
                              —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation       Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                                    No 40/94                                                          and services: goods in Class 32
                                                                                (fruit drinks and fruit juices)
                              —     German registrations       for
                                    upright bottles
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
                                                                        before the Board of           iner
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         Appeal:
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &                                                           Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in                                                     No 40/94 (1)
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                —     No need to refuse the mark
                                                                                claimed registration
                         (Case T-147/02)
                                                                                —     Infringement                of
                         (2002/C 180/44)                                                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                      —     German registrations       for
                                                                                upright bottles
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
lawyers.


title: Case C-53/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Carsten René Beul v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Functioning of the financial markets — Requirements for the carrying out of the statutory audit of annual and consolidated financial statements of public-interest entities — Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 — Rules on the organisation and selection of statutory auditors and audit firms by public-interest entities — No individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/23

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Carsten René Beul v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-53/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Functioning of the financial markets - Requirements for the carrying out of the statutory audit of annual and consolidated financial statements of public-interest entities - Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 - Rules on the organisation and selection of statutory auditors and audit firms by public-interest entities - No individual concern - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 104/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Carsten René Beul (represented by: H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and P. Schonard, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and R. Wiemann, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Carsten René Beul is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-465/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — M. Elgafaji, N. Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 2(e) — Real risk of suffering serious harm — Article 15(c) — Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict — Proof)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — M. Elgafaji, N. Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-465/07) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 2(e) - Real risk of suffering serious harm - Article 15(c) - Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict - Proof)
   2009/C 90/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M. Elgafaji, N. Elgafaji

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nederlandse Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 2(e) and 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted — Minimum standards in relation to the conditions governing the granting of refugee status — Level of protection equivalent to that of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or, in the event of non-equivalence, the criteria to be applied for the purpose of determining whether there are serious and individual threats by reason of indiscriminate violence

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, in conjunction with Article 2(e) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the existence of a serious and individual threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection is not subject to the condition that that applicant adduce evidence that he is specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances;

               —

               the existence of such a threat can exceptionally be considered to be established where the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict taking place — assessed by the competent national authorities before which an application for subsidiary protection is made, or by the courts of a Member State to which a decision refusing such an application is referred — reaches such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a civilian, returned to the relevant country or, as the case may be, to the relevant region, would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to that threat.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-440/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/12

         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission
   (Case T-440/12)
   2012/C 373/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

               —

               require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.


title: Case C-431/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 2 November 2009 — Airfield NV and Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 2 November 2009 — Airfield NV and Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam)
   (Case C-431/09)
   2010/C 24/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Airfield NV and Canal Digitaal BV

      Respondent: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 93/83 (1) preclude the requirement that a supplier of digital satellite television must obtain the consent of the copyright holders in the case where a broadcasting organisation transmits its programme-carrying signals, either by a fixed link or by an encrypted satellite signal, to a supplier of digital satellite television which is independent of the broadcasting organisation, and that supplier has those signals encrypted and beamed to a satellite by a company associated with it, after which those signals are beamed down, with the consent of the broadcasting organisation, as part of a package of television programmes and therefore bundled, to the satellite television supplier’s subscribers, who are able to view the programmes simultaneously and unaltered by means of a decryption card or smart card provided by the satellite television supplier?

               2.

               Does Directive 93/83 preclude the requirement that a supplier of digital satellite television must obtain the consent of the copyright holders in the case where a broadcasting organisation transmits its programme-carrying signals to a satellite in accordance with the instructions of a digital television supplier which is independent of the broadcasting organisation, after which those signals are beamed down, with the consent of the broadcasting organisation, as part of a package of television programmes and therefore bundled, to the satellite television supplier’s subscribers, who are able to view the programmes simultaneously and unaltered by means of a decryption card or smart card provided by the satellite television supplier?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-327/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-327/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/43/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 93/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-327/04, action for a declaration under Article 226 EC, brought on 27 July 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and M. Huttunen) v Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, as regards the province of Åland, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case C-56/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia)) — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Subheading CN 05119110 — Subheading CN 03032200 — Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon — Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 — Anti-dumping duties)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia)) — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
   (Case C-56/08) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading CN 05119110 - Subheading CN 03032200 - Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon - Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 - Anti-dumping duties)
   2009/C 220/12
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tallinna Halduskohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pärlitigu OÜ

      Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tallinna Halduskohus — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) in the version applicable at the material time — Validity of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1) — Classification under heading 0303220015 (farmed salmon, frozen, other) or 0511911000 (fish waste) for the purpose of levying anti-dumping duty — Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon obtained after filleting the fish

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature, which constitutes Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under CN heading 0303 22 00 if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 30 March 2004 inCase C-147/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal(England and Wales) (Civil Division)): Michelle K. Alabaster v Woolwich plc, Secretary of State for Social Security  (‘Social policy — Men and women— Equal pay — Pay during maternity leave — Calculation of amount — Whetherto include a pay rise’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 30 March 2004
   in Case C-147/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)): Michelle K. Alabaster v Woolwich plc, Secretary of State for Social Security
       (1)

   (‘Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Pay during maternity leave - Calculation of amount - Whether to include a pay rise’)
   (2004/C 106/15)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-147/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Michelle K. Alabaster and Woolwich plc, Secretary of State for Social Security – on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and the judgment in Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475 – the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be interpreted as requiring that, in so far as the pay received by the worker during her maternity leave is determined at least in part on the basis of the pay she earned before her maternity leave began, any pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay taken into account in calculating the amount of such pay. This requirement is not limited to cases where the pay rise is back-dated to the period covered by the reference pay.

               2.

               Absent any Community legislation in this sphere, it is for the competent national authorities to determine how, in compliance with all the provisions of Community law, and in particular Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), any pay rise awarded before or during maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay used to calculate the pay due to a worker during maternity leave.

      (1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case C-T-54/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin against Council of the European Union

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/29

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin against Council of the European Union
   (Case C-T-54/05)
   (2005/C 193/48)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Marten, Albert Coolen, Etienne Marchal and Jean-Noël Louis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request to annul its decision not to award him the expatriation allowance and the associated rights;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law put forward by the applicant are the same as those put forward by the same applicant in Case T-408/04 (1).

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 300 of 4.12.2004, p. 50.