title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2002 in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v Council of the European Union and European Parliament (Officials — Open competition — Delegation of the appointing authority's powers — Inadmissibility)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 19/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and J. Currall) — application for,
                         of 7 October 2002                                   essentially, annulment of the decision of the selection board
                                                                             for internal competition COM/A/17/96 not to include the
in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v Council of the European                    applicant in the list of successful candidates on the ground
               Union and European Parliament (1)                             that he did not obtain the minimum requisite number of
                                                                             marks in the oral test and seeking compensation for the
                                                                             material and non-material damage allegedly suffered — the
(Officials — Open competition — Delegation of the appoint-                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
           ing authority’s powers — Inadmissibility)
                                                                             N.J. Forwood , President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 October 2002, the
                           (2003/C 19/66)                                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.     There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.
In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary staff               2.     The Commission shall bear the whole of the costs.
of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg),
represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) and European Parliament                    (1 ) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.
(Agents: J.F. De Wachter and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the entire marking procedure in respect of the
written tests for Competition EUR/A/151/98 or, otherwise,
annulment of the decision of the selection board refusing to
admit her to the tests subsequent to test VII.A.d) and, in the
alternative, for compensation in respect of the non-material
damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 7 October 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
follows:
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    The application in Case T-24/01 is dismissed as clearly
      inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Council.                                   of 17 October 2002
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs in the present action
      in so far as it is brought against the Council, including those
      relating to the proceedings for interim relief.                        in Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
( 1) OJ C 95, 24.3.2001.
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Admissibility —
                                                                                Act adversely affecting an official)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/68)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 21 October 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                   (No need to give a judgment)                              In Case T-215/02 R: Santiago Gómez-Reino, an official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2003/C 19/67)                                    Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities (Agents: H.P. Hartvig
                                                                             and J. Currall) — application for interim measures requiring,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           first, the production of certain documents, second, the suspen-
                                                                             sion of a number of decisions or prohibiting decisions to be
                                                                             taken relating to internal investigations conducted by the
In Case T-97/01: Christos Gogos, an official of the Commission               European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, third, the adoption of
of the European Communities, represented by C. Tagaras,                      measures under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — the


title: Case C-515/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/25

         Action brought on 11 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-515/09)
   2010/C 63/40
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.


title: Case C-316/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2009 — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2009 — MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Merckle GmbH
   (Case C-316/09)
   2009/C 267/66
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

      Defendant: Merckle GmbH

      Question referred

   The following question relating to the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) most recently amended by Directive 2008/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, (2) is hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling:
   Does the scope of application of Article 88(1)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use extend to the advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are available only on prescription where that advertising contains only information which was placed before the authorising authority in the course of the marketing authorisation procedure and which is accessible in any event to every person acquiring the product, and where that information is not made available to an interested party on an unsolicited basis but can be accessed only through the internet when the party concerned takes steps to do so?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 81, p. 51.


title: Case F-121/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  –De Meerleer v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/52

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 –De Meerleer v Commission
   (Case F-121/05)
   (2006/C 60/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel De Meerleer (Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to accept the applicant's candidature and, consequently, not to admit him to the competition or to mark his written test;

               —

               annul the selection board's decision of 30 May 2005 refusing to make a determination in respect of the applicant's request for a reconsideration of 18 May 2005 and also annulment of any act consecutive upon or relating to that decision;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's decision of 2 September 2005, notified to the applicant on 14 September 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint, which was registered on 13 June 2005 under reference R/493/05;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant participated in Open Competition EPSO/A/19/04 for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in grade A7/A6 in the specialist fields of civil engineering, engineering, chemistry/chemical products/industrial chemistry and air transport. Following his success in the pre-selection tests, he sent EPSO his application together with the requisite supporting documents. After examining the file, the selection board excluded the applicant from the competition on the ground that his professional experience was inadequate.
   The applicant maintains that the competition selection board breached Articles 29(1)(a) and 30 of the Staff Regulations, Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and the competition notice, in so far as a manifest error of assessment vitiates the evaluation of the applicant's professional experience and the decision not to accept his candidature. Furthermore, the decision contains only inadequate reasons.
   The applicant further criticises the competition selection board and the appointing authority for having breached Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, Article 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and also the competition notice and the principle of equal treatment for candidates. In particular, the use of unreliable computer systems in correspondence with the applicant gave rise to discrimination against the applicant by comparison with other candidates.
   As an ancillary point, in case the Tribunal should not grant his application for annulment of the contested decisions, the applicant contends that the award of compensation would constitute the most appropriate form of reparation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage that those decisions caused to him.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2000 in Case C-138/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Vincenzo Farina v Credito Italiano SpA (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly identical question)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/11
— in sectors of the public service where women are under-represented,       Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) (Italy) for a
    gives priority, where male and female candidates have equal             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    qualifications, to female candidates where that proves necessary        court between Vincenzo Farina and Credito Italiano SpA —
    for ensuring compliance with the objectives of the women’s              on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
    advancement plan, if no reasons of greater legal weight are             (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) in the light of certain uniform
    opposed, provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are       bank rules which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana lays down
    the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the       for its members in relation to the conclusion of contracts for
    specific personal situations of all candidates,                         the opening of current account credit facilities and all-
                                                                            embracing guarantee agreements — the Court of Justice
— prescribes that the binding targets of the women’s advancement            (Second Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the
    plan for temporary posts in the academic service and for academic       Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and M. Skouris, Judges;
    assistants must provide for a minimum percentage of women               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
    which is at least equal to the percentage of women among                made an order on 28 January 2000, the operative part of
    graduates, holders of higher degrees and students in each               which is as follows:
    discipline,
                                                                            1. Uniform bank rules, inasmuch as they allow banks, in respect of
— in so far as its objective is to eliminate under-representation of            contracts for the opening of current account credit facilities, to
    women, in trained occupations in which women are under-                     modify at any moment the interest rate by reason of changes on
    represented and for which the State does not have a monopoly of             the money market, by means of a notice posted on their premises
    training, allocates at least half the training places to women,             or by such method as they consider most appropriate, do not
    unless despite appropriate measures for drawing the attention of            have as their object or effect the restriction of competition within
    women to the training places available there are not enough                 the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article
    applications from women,                                                    81(1) EC);
— where male and female candidates have equal qualifications,               2. Uniform bank rules relating to the all-embracing guarantee
    guarantees that qualified women who satisfy all the conditions              covering the opening of current account credit facilities and
    required or laid down are called to interview, in sectors in which          derogating from the general law applied to guarantees, such as
    they are under-represented,                                                 those at issue in the main proceedings, are not capable, taken as
                                                                                a whole, of affecting trade between Member States within the
— relating to the composition of employees’ representative bodies               meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
    and administrative and supervisory bodies, recommends that the
    legislative provisions adopted for its implementation take into         3. The application of those uniform bank rules does not constitute
    account the objective that at least half the members of those               an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article
    bodies must be women.                                                       86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
                                                                            (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
                         of 28 January 2000                                 in Case C-291/98 P: Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-138/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Genova): Vincenzo Farina v Credito                         (Application for the re-opening of the written procedure and
                            Italiano SpA (1)                                                the opening of the oral procedure)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                                                 (2000/C 149/19)
                          identical question)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2000/C 149/18)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-138/97: reference to the Court of Justice under                   In Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona (Spain),
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the                  represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of


title: Case T-206/00: Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
Communities on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A., established                 whether, upon the award of the contract in issue, the
in Milan (Italy), represented by Francesco Apruzzi, of the              contracting authority did actually observe the conditions laid
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar.                down for ensuring that the tender corresponded to the contract
                                                                        specifications.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
                                                                            coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                            contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54, as corrected by L 111 of
—     annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                            30.4.1994, p. 115).
      Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter from the General           (2) Council Decision 93/371/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
      Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, ref.                access to Council documents (OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43).
      IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
      costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the decision of the                                        (Case T-206/00)
Council of the European Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter
from its General Secretariat (ref. IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm),                                          (2000/C 285/37)
refusing to accede to the request made by the applicant
company for access to the administrative file concerning the
evaluation of tenders for the contract entitled ‘Installation and
maintenance works to be carried out in the buildings of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Council of the European Union (JO/S146-107865)’, from
which that company was excluded.                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult,
The contract in question, which was of a restricted nature,             residing at Howald (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
involved a study of, and the carrying-out and coordination of,          by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
a general project for installation, alteration and maintenance
works in relation to the Council’s buildings.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission fixing the appli-
The applicant points out that, when the tender bids were                      cant’s classification on recruitment in grade A 7, step 1;
opened by the committee evaluating the tenders, it appeared
that the lowest price for the provision of the works in question        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
was that proposed by the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company maintains, first, that the position
adopted by the Council is not in accordance with the policy of
openness and transparency introduced and pursued by the                 The applicant in the present case, who successfully passed
Community authorities since October 1992. It further states             open competition EUR/A/123, contests the decision of the
that, so far as concerns Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), as       appointing authority classifying her in grade A 7, step 1, on
well as Decision 93/371/EC (2) and the Code of Conduct for              her appointment as a category A official.
public access to documents, the defendant has not indicated
the precise provision and the interests needing to be protected         In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
which purportedly prevent it from communicating the docu-
ments requested to the applicant. By the same token, the                —     failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
Council has not stated any reasons as to why the contents of                  statement of reasons, infringement of the second para-
the administrative file might be covered by one of the                        graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and breach
exceptions provided for in Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC                   of the decision concerning the criteria applicable to
and/or Decision 93/371/EC.                                                    appointment in grade and classification in step of Com-
                                                                              mission officials on recruitment;
In those circumstances, the applicant is unable to assess the           —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
extent to which the decision at issue may be lawful or to verify              assessment;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 285/21
—     violation of the principles of equal treatment, non-            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-321/94 and
      discrimination and legal certainty, and of the principles                                 T-343/94 (1)
      applying to the withdrawal of administrative acts.
                                                                                (2000/C 285/38)
The applicant points out that, by admitting her to the tests
in competitions EUR/A/123 and COM/A/12, the respective
selection boards implicitly recognised that she had since
20 December 1986 (on which date she was awarded a Bachelor                              (Language of the case: German)
of Arts degree by the University of New Mexico) possessed a
degree entitling her to classification in grade A. However,           By order of 10 April 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
according to Article 3 of the decision concerning the criteria        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communites
applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step         has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
on recruitment and Annex II thereto, the applicant was thus           T-321/94 and T-343/94, Helmut Rodermann and Peter Bach
entitled to 48 months’ seniority by virtue of professional            v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
experience acquired by her prior to her entry into service as a       European Communities.
grade A official.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994.


title: Case C-469/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/8

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-469/09 P)
   2010/C 37/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order at first instance, that is the alternative claim to annul Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal and the intervener, the Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that the conclusion of the preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), required the existence of an express decision by Commission decision to that effect (addressed to the Member State).

               2.

               The CFI misinterpreted the decision of 28 November 2000 by holding that that decision put an end to the preliminary examination procedure of the tax measure at issue which arose out of a complaint lodged in April 1994. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 was to be carried out within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               3.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, in particular with respect to the documentary evidence consisting of the decision of 28 November 2000 (its credibility and probative force). The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial.

               4.

               The CFI erred in law by infringing the procedural rules relating to the assessment of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the objective, relevant, corroborative and conclusive evidence in the case-file and which proves that, prior to the decision of 28 November 2000, the Commission had conducted a preliminary examination of the tax measure at issue and had closed that examination. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 had to be conducted within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               5.

               The CFI erred in law by confirming the finding that the tax measure at issue, adopted in 1993, constituted operating aid, by applying the definition of investment aid laid down in the directives on regional aid of 1998. The CFI breached the principle of legal certainty and, in particular, the principle of non-retroactivity.

               6.

               The CFI erred in law as regards the concept of ‘relevant information’ for the preliminary examination of a tax system in the field of State aid which led the CFI to hold that the length of the preliminary procedure was not unreasonable.

               7.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable period of time for a preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, and by holding, that therefore there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of legal certainty.

               8.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable for a preliminary examination procedure for the tax measure at issue and by holding, therefore, that there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of sound administration.

               9.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in the instant case, there are no exceptional circumstances which justify the legitimate expectation that the tax measure at issue was lawful which could preclude the recovery of the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The decision was also misinterpreted.

               10.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in this case, there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment which could preclude recovery of the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999.

               11.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-512/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Front Polisario v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Front Polisario v Council
   (Case T-512/12)
   2013/C 55/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Front populaire pour la liberation de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (Laâyoune) (represented by: C.E. Hafiz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested act and, consequently, all implementing acts.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises five pleas in law in support of its action against (i) Council Decision 2012/497/EU of 8 March 2012 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2012 L 241, p. 2) and (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 812/2012 of 12 September 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Morocco (OJ 2012 L 247, p. 7).
   The applicant is of the opinion that, as the representative of the Sahrawi people, it is directly and individually affected by those acts.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the duty to state reasons, when it was particularly necessary to state reasons having regard to the legal environment and, second, infringement of the right to a hearing, since the Front Polisario was not consulted.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights protected by Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and the principles laid down in the case-law by breaching the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people and by encouraging the policy of annexation followed by the Kingdom of Morocco, an occupying power in the view of the applicant. The applicant also claims infringement of the principle of coherence laid down in Article 7 TFEU by the failure to respect the principle of sovereignty and infringement of the values on which the European Union is based and the principles governing its external action in contravention of Articles 2 TEU, 3(5) TEU, 21 TEU and 205 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of international agreements concluded by the European Union, in particular the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of a number of norms of international law, including the right to self-determination, the relative effect of the Treaties and the essential provisions of international humanitarian law.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are unlawful, since the illicit nature of the European Union’s conduct under international law makes those acts unlawful.


title: Case C-503/07 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/15

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-503/07 P)
   (2008/C 64/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Saint-Gobain Deutschland GmbH (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the order of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 (Fels-Werke and Others v Commission of the European Communities) in so far as it concerns the appellant;

               —

               annul Article 1.2 of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Germany pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (document number unpublished), insofar as it declares the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the heading ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’ to be incompatible with Directive 2003/87/EC;

               —

               annul Article 2.2 of that decision insofar as it issues to the Federal Republic of Germany instructions for the application of the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the heading ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007’ and in so doing also requires the application of the same performance factor as for other comparable existing installations;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the order referred to in the first indent above and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   By the contested order the Court of First Instance ruled that the appellant was not individually concerned and consequently dismissed as inadmissible its action for annulment of parts of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the plan notified by Germany for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances.
   In support of its appeal the appellant claims that the procedural law which operates in its interests and material Community law, namely the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, have been infringed.
   First, the Court of First Instance infringed the fundamental rights to a fair hearing and to be heard. It reasoned its finding that the appellant was not individually concerned primarily on the basis that it did not prove that it was a member, as claimed, of a closed class of operators and, in particular, on the basis that it did not submit a list of operators which fall within the application of Paragraph 8(1) of the ZUG 2007. However, at no point in the proceedings did the Court of First Instance request submission of a list of operators concerned by the allocation guarantee. The relevance of the submission of such a list was also not apparent to the applicant for any other reason since the specific and closed nature of the circle of operators benefiting from the allocation guarantee is already apparent from the mandatory legal structure of the ZUG 2007, as submitted before the Court of First Instance. Furthermore, in requesting the submission of such a list, the Court of First Instance is asking the appellant to do something which it is not actually in a position to do.
   Second, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC in that it wrongly found that the applicant was not individually concerned. The group of persons, to whom the contested decision applies, is not only — in the words of the Court — ‘more or less precisely’ determined, but is also conclusively defined by operation of law as a result of past events and it is not conceivable how it may be expanded. As regards the operators concerned by the allocation guarantee in Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007, the contested decision could, furthermore, also be viewed as a bundle of individual decisions since the continued application of the allocation guarantee has been denied to each and every one of those operators.


title: Case C-413/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Substantive scope — Collective labour agreement — Provision laying down minimum rates for independent service providers — Definition of ‘undertaking’  — Definition of ‘employee’ )

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden
   (Case C-413/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Substantive scope - Collective labour agreement - Provision laying down minimum rates for independent service providers - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Definition of ‘employee’))
   (2015/C 046/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media

      Defendant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of EU law, it is only when self-employed service providers who are members of one of the contracting employees’ organisations and perform for an employer, under a works or service contract, the same activity as that employer’s employed workers, are ‘false self-employed’, in other words, service providers in a situation comparable to that of those workers, that a provision of a collective labour agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets minimum fees for those self-employed service providers, does not fall within the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-413/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Cham v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/19

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Cham v Council
      (Case T-413/16)
      (2016/C 364/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Cham Holding (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-410/16, Makhlouf v Council.


title: Action brought on 31 August 1998 by Armement Coopératif Artisanal Vendéen (ACAV) and Others against Council of the European Union (Case T-138/98)

text:
7.11.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 340/25
Finally the applicant claims that its right to a fair hearing       On 19 December 1997 the Commission sent a letter
has been disregarded, given that, at no time during the             pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/
pre-litigation procedure did the Commission respect its             63/EEC in which it stated that it had concluded that there
fundamental right to be heard.                                      were no grounds for granting the application in so far as
                                                                    Article 86 of the EC Treaty was concerned. In its letter of
                                                                    2 February 1998 the applicant submitted its observations
(1) OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5.                                     to this Article 6 letter' by reiterating its objections to the
                                                                    intention of the Commission to reject its complaint. It
                                                                    asked the Commission to reject the complaint by formal
                                                                    decision within a reasonable time and in any event before
                                                                    15 March 1998.
                                                                    On 2 June 1998 the applicant formally invited the
Action brought on 7 August 1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA                 Commission to make a final decision with regard to its
   against the Commission of the European Communities               complaint under Article 86 of the EC Treaty and
                       (Case T-127/98)                              announced that it would initiate an action for failure to
                                                                    act under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission
                        (98/C 340/48)                               did not inform the applicant of its decision within two
                                                                    months from the date of that letter. As the Commission
                                                                    has not delivered the requested final decision, the present
               (Language of the case: English)                      application has been submitted to the Court.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 1998
by UPS Europe SA/NV, represented by Tom R.
Ottervanger and Dirk Arts, with an address for service in           Action brought on 31 August 1998 by Armement
Luxembourg at the offices of Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue            CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others against
Charles Martel.                                                                    Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-138/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (98/C 340/49)
Ð declare in accordance with Article 175           of the EC                       (Language of the case: French)
     Treaty that the Commission has failed to      act by not
     having delivered a decision on the            applicant's      An action against the Council of the European Union was
     complaint lodged with the Commission          on 7 July        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     1994;                                                          Communities on 31 August 1998 by Armement
                                                                    CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others,
                                                                    established in Ile d'Yeu (France), represented by Lise
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the             Funck-Bretano and SteÂphanie Ponsot, of the Paris Bar,
     applicant in the present proceedings; and                      with an Address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Neuer, 9 Avenue Guillaume.
Ð take such further action as the Court may deem
     appropriate.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98;
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.
On 7 July 1994, the applicant, part of the United Parcel
Service' (UPS) group of companies, which is active
worldwide in the business of parcel delivery, lodged a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
complaint with the Commission asking it to initiate
proceedings against Deutsche Bundespostdienst (now                  On 8 June 1998 the Council adopted the contested
Deutsche Post AG). In its complaint, the applicant, apart           regulation prohibiting, with effect from 1 January 2002,
from alleging unlawful State aid by the Member State                the use of drift-nets for the capture of certain species of
Germany, identified conduct of Deutsche Post AG which,              fish, including white tuna, by vessels flying the flag of a
in its opinion, infringes Article 86 of the EC Treaty. The          Member State, in particular in the North-East Atlantic.
applicant is of the opinion that the Deutsche Post AG is
engaged both in predatory pricing practices and in using
cross-subsidies to extend a dominant position from the              The applicants, all fishermen from the Ile d'Yeu, who fish
letter market to the related parcel market.                         for those species, in particular using that type of net,
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
claim, first, that the Council failed to consult the                for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
European Parliament for a second time on the                        rue de Cessange.
modifications made by the Council to the Commission's
proposal for a regulation dated 8 April 1994 and that the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Community has no jurisdiction to legislate in
the North-East Atlantic.                                            Ð annul the decision of 29 October 1997 of the Brussels
                                                                        office responsible for settling claims refusing prior
Second, the contested regulation is contrary to the aims of             authorisation for reimbursement of subsistence
the common fisheries policy and the regulations                         expenses in connection with treatment at the Quiberon
implementing it.                                                        thalassotherapy centre;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Third, the contested regulation should be annulled in so
far as it infringes the following higher principles of law:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the right to freedom to carry on a commercial activity            By the contested decision a request for prior authorisation
    in so far as the prohibition set out in the regulation at       to undergo treatment at a spa from 25 October to
    issue prevents the applicants from carrying on their            3 November 1997 was refused on the ground that the
    activity of fishing for white tuna using drift-nets;            treatment centre chosen did not provide treatment for the
                                                                    medical condition in question.
Ð the principle of proportionality set out in Article 3b of
    the Treaty, in view of the disproportionate and                 The applicant submits that this decision is vitiated by an
    manifestly inappropriate nature of the contested                abuse of rights and breaches the fundamental principle of
    measure in the light of the aim pursued, namely the             freedom to choose a doctor and place of treatment. The
    conservation of fishing resources;                              defendant cannot refuse on the basis of exclusively
                                                                    budgetary considerations to recognise the quality of the
                                                                    treatment given in a medical establishment.
Ð the principle of non-discrimination set out in
    Article 40(3) of the Treaty, in so far as the provisions
    of the new Articles 11, 11a, 11b and 11c of Council             Moreover, the decision is vitiated by a manifest error of
    Regulation (EC) No 894/97 do not apply to fishing in            assessment since the treatment centre chosen is recognised,
    the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the éresund, nor to               both by the competent national authorities and by doctors
    salmon fishing using drift-nets.                                specialising in the field of the particular complaint from
                                                                    which the applicant suffers, as competent to provide the
                                                                    appropriate treatment.
Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
is vitiated by manifest error and is of an arbitrary nature         Finally, the defendant has failed to fulfil the legitimate
in so far as it was not adopted in order to ensure a                expectation the applicant was entitled to have as a result
rational and responsible use of available fishing resources,        of the information provided by the department responsible
but responds to the pressure from certain Member States             and has disregarded the obligation to provide the
and international public opinion to prohibit certain                applicant with a relevant statement of reasons establishing
Member States from fishing for certain species, in the              a cogent link between the findings of its medical officer
present case tuna and sword fish, using drift-nets and by a         and the conclusion it reached.
misuse of powers, in so far as it was adopted with the aim
of putting an end to Community controls on compliance
with the rules.
                                                                    Action brought on 10 September 1998 by SA Image
                                                                    CreÂation against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by H' against the                                     (Case T-142/98)
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (98/C 340/51)
                        (Case T-140/98)
                         (98/C 340/50)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 10 September
An action against the Commission of the European                    1998 by SA Image CreÂation, established in Brussels,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   represented by Georges Vandersanden, Eric Gillet and
Instance of the European Communities on 7 September                 Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
1998 by H', represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and                    in Luxembourg at the premises of Fiduciaire Myson
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address         SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.


title: Case C-373/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) TFEU — Power transformers market — Oral market-sharing agreement (‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’) — Restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Barriers to entry — Presumption of participation in an unlawful cartel — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 18)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission
   (Case C-373/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) TFEU - Power transformers market - Oral market-sharing agreement (‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’) - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Barriers to entry - Presumption of participation in an unlawful cartel - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 18))
   (2016/C 098/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and by J. Jourdan and P. Berghe, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, J. Norris-Usher and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Toshiba Corporation to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case F-126/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/42

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-126/15)
   (2015/C 414/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Payment of compensation to the applicants for the material harm they have incurred on account of the loss of their pension rights acquired in the national system following the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the European Union.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the sums referred to in the application to any fund or insurance policy in the applicants’ names;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Court of Justice to pay EU 61  121,08 to ZZ, EUR 1 29  440,98 to [another applicant], EUR 76  324,29 to [another applicant] and EUR 99  565,13 to [another applicant], those sums to be paid together with interest calculated at a rate of 3,1 % per annum from the date of the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the PSEUI;

               —

               in the further alternative, declare that the Court of Justice acted negligently when it transferred the applicants’ pension rights;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.


title: Case T-246/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2008 — Melli Bank v Council (Applications for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Council decision — Measure to freeze funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency — Absence of serious and irreparable damage)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/13

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2008 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-246/08 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Council decision - Measure to freeze funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency - Absence of serious and irreparable damage)
   (2008/C 260/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon, QC, J. Stratford, M. Hoskins, Barristers, R. Gwynne and T. Din, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents)
   Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, acting as Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister) and French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and L. Butel, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Melli Bank plc is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-583/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission (Appeals — Officials — Internal competition for promotion from one category to another — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations — Unlimited jurisdiction — Dispute of a financial character — Length of proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Claim for equitable compensation)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — Christos Gogos v European Commission
   (Case C-583/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Internal competition for promotion from one category to another - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Unlimited jurisdiction - Dispute of a financial character - Length of proceedings before the General Court - Reasonable time - Claim for equitable compensation)
   2010/C 179/12
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Gogos (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by P.I. Anestis, dikigoros)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Case T-66/04 Gogos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to place the applicant in Grade A 7 when he was appointed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-252/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Cooperativa Ducale fra Gondolieri di Venezia s.c.a r.l. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.11.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 335/47
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Cooperativa                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ducale fra Gondolieri di Venezia s.c.a r.l. and Others
    against Commission of the European Communities                         —     annul the decision not to pay the applicant the allowance
                                                                                to which he is entitled following termination of his
                                                                                service as a member of the temporary staff with CEDEFOP
                         (Case T-252/00)
                                                                                in Thessaloniki;
                         (2000/C 335/89)                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  The applicant is an official in the Secretariat-General of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Council. He was seconded by his institution to the European
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Cooperati-                    Centre for Development and Occupational Training (CEDE-
va Ducale fra Gondolieri di Venezia s.c.a r.l. and Others,                 FOP) in Thessaloniki, where he served as a member of the
represented by Mario Giantin, of the Venice Bar.                           temporary staff. After subsequently terminating his service
                                                                           with CEDEFOP and being reinstated at the Council, he
                                                                           requested a (re)installation allowance, which was refused by
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                the contested decision.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;                              By the present action the applicant seeks annulment of that
                                                                           decision on the ground that it infringes Article 25 of the Staff
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Regulations, Article 24(2) of the Rules of Employment of
                                                                           Other Servants and Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                           Regulations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
The applicants point out that they have standing, as two                   Action brought on 25 September 2000 by Anne Puers
cooperatives operating gondoliers, to claim that there is no                 against the Commission of the European Communities
anti-competitive effect arising from the alleged ‘aid measure’,
as well as the need for their business to survive, for the sake of                                 (Case T-307/00)
the environment, culture and tourism of the area concerned.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/91)
(1) not yet published.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 September 2000 by Anne
                                                                           Puers, of Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar.
Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-
rickx against the European Centre for Development and                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
              Occupational Training (CEDEFOP)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission notified on
                         (Case T-298/00)                                         25 November 1999 refusing to award an orphan’s pen-
                                                                                sion to the applicant’s child;
                         (2000/C 335/90)                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against CEDEFOP was brought before the Court of                  The applicant, an official of the Commission, applied under
First Instance of the European Communities on 18 September                 Article 80 of the Staff Regulations for an orphan’s pension for
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, residing in Brussels, represented                her daughter following the death of the child’s father, with
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                          whom the applicant cohabited.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 21 March 1996 in Case C-297/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Belgian Counseil d'État): Dominique Bruyère and Others v. Belgian State (Veterinary medicinal products - Directives 81/851/EEC and 90/676/EEC)

text:
No C 180/6             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
     to vote in the United Nations Food and Agriculture                  90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990, must be interpreted as
     Organization for the adoption of the Agreement to                  prohibiting the importation into a Member State of a
     promote compliance with international conservation                 medicinal product covered by that Directive with a view to
     and management measures by fishing vessels on the high             placing it on the market of that State or of administering it
     seas .                                                             there in the absence of prior authorization issued by the
                                                                        competent authority of that Member State.
2.   Orders the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                        (<) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
 3 . Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
 (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 21 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-335/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Amtsgericht, Recklinghausen ): Proceedings by Hans
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                        Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager against administrative
                          ( First Chamber )                                                          fines ( 1 )
                       of 21 March 1996                                 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
in Case C-297/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    for refuse vehicles)
by the Belgian Counseil d'État): Dominique Bruyère and                                           ( 96/C 180/12 )
                  Others v. Belgian State (')
 ( Veterinary medicinal products — Directives 81/851/EEC
                        and 90/676/EEC)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            ( 96/C 180/ 11 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-335/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court),
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Recklinghausen, for a preliminarey ruling in the proceedings
                                                                        against administrative fines brought before that court by
                                                                        Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager on the
In Case C-297/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177             interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a                   No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              certain social legislation relating to road transport ( OJ No
court between Dominique Bruyère and Others and the                     L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) of            of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber), P. Jann
Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September 1981 on the              ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to             Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
veterinary medicinal products ( OJ No L 317, 1981 , p . 1 ), in        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 1996 in
its original version and as amended by Council Directive               which it rules :
90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990 ( OJ No L 373 , 1990,
p . 15 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevôn                  1 . The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse
( Rapporteur ), Judges ; M. P. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                  collection and disposal' in Article 4 (6) of Council
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                      Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on
judgment on 21 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is                 the harmonization ofcertain social legislation relating to
as follows :                                                                road transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles
                                                                            used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not
                                                                            subject to more specific rules and for the transportation
Article 4 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of28 September                  ofsuch waste over short distances, within the context of
198Î on the approximation of the laws of the Member                         a general service in the public interest provided directly
States relating to veterinary medicinal products, in its                    by the public authorities or by private undertakings
original version and as amended by Council Directive                        under their control.


title: Case F-87/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 — EI v Council

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 — EI v Council
   (Case F-87/14) (1)

   (2015/C 262/62)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 49.


title: Case C-518/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 September 2015 — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 September 2015 — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak
   (Case C-518/15)
   (2015/C 414/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ville de Nivelles

      Respondent: Rudy Matzak

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 17(3)(c)(iii) of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as enabling Member States to exclude certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services from all the provisions transposing that Directive, including the provision that defines working time and rest periods?

               2.

               Inasmuch as Directive 2003/88 of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time provides for only minimum requirements, must it be interpreted as not preventing the national legislature from retaining or adopting a less restrictive definition of working time?

               3.

               Taking account of Article 153(5) TFEU and of the objectives of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must Article 2 of that Directive, in so far as it defines the principal concepts used in the Directive, in particular those of working time and rest periods, be interpreted to the effect that it is not applicable to the concept of working time which serves to determine the remuneration owed in the case of home-based on-call time?

               4.

               Does Directive 2003/88 of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time prevent home-based on-call time from being regarded as working time when, although the on-call time is undertaken at the home of the worker, the constraints on him during the on-call time (such as the duty to respond to calls from his employer within eight minutes) very significantly restrict the opportunities to undertake other activities?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case C-337/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/19

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-337/12 P)
   2012/C 295/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Pi-Design AG, Bodum France, and Bodum Logistics A/S, (represented by: H. Pernez, Advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Squash the judgment of the General Court

               —

               Annul the Community trademark 1 371 244

         Subsidiairily

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court with the obligation to refer the case back to the Board of Appeal in the case of annulment of the latter's decision.

               —

               Order YOSHIDA METAL INDUSTRY CO. LTD. to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General court infringed Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community trade mark regulation by applying incorrect criteria in the identification of the essential characteristics of the contested sign and by distorting the evidence before it.


title: Case C-494/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria — Italy) — Bolton Alimentari SpA v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria (Preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Customs duty — Tariff quota — Customs Code — Article 239 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Articles 308a, 308b and 905 — Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 — Tuna — Exhaustion of quota — Date of opening — Sunday)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria — Italy) — Bolton Alimentari SpA v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria
   (Case C-494/09) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Customs duty - Tariff quota - Customs Code - Article 239 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Articles 308a, 308b and 905 - Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 - Tuna - Exhaustion of quota - Date of opening - Sunday)
   2011/C 103/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bolton Alimentari SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria — Interpretation of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Reimbursement or repayment of import duties — Possibility for a Member State itself to rule on a claim for reimbursement — Concept of ‘special situation’ within the meaning of Art. 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Community importer excluded from a tariff quota opened on a Sunday due to the closure of national customs offices

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 308a to 308c of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding the European Commission from being able to adopt a decision excluding an operator from a tariff quota by reason of the fact that that quota was exhausted on the day on which it was opened, namely a Sunday, that being a day on which the customs offices in the Member State in which the operator in question is established are closed;

               2.

               Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, must be interpreted as not requiring a Member State to request the European Commission to suspend a tariff quota in order to ensure fair and non-discriminatory treatment of importers in cases where the opening of that tariff quota falls on a Sunday, that being a day on which the customs offices in the Member State in question are closed, and where that quota is liable to be exhausted on the day on which it is opened, given that the customs offices in other Member States are open on Sundays;

               3.

               In circumstances other than those contemplated in Article 899(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, the customs authority of a Member State has the power itself to rule on the application for repayment referred to in Article 239(2) 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, if that authority takes the view that no irregularity can be attributed to the European Commission and that the application in question does not come within any of the other circumstances contemplated in Article 905(1) of Regulation No 2454/93;

               4.

               Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it can refer to the exclusion of a European Union importer from a tariff quota, the opening date of which falls on a Sunday, by reason of the Sunday closing of the customs offices in the Member State in which that importer is established.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-31/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Marianne Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Inheritance tax — Conditions for the calculation of the tax — Acquisition through inheritance of a shareholding, as sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country — National legislation excluding shareholdings in such companies from tax advantages)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Marianne Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven
   (Case C-31/11) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Inheritance tax - Conditions for the calculation of the tax - Acquisition through inheritance of a shareholding, as sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country - National legislation excluding shareholdings in such companies from tax advantages)
   2012/C 295/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marianne Scheunemann

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bremerhaven

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Acquisition by inheritance of a shareholding, as a sole shareholder, in a capital company established in a third country forming part of the private wealth of the deceased — Inheritance tax — National legislation providing for tax advantages for companies which have their registered office or principle place of business in the national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   Legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, excludes the application of certain tax advantages to an estate in the form of a shareholding in a capital company established in a third country, while conferring those advantages in the event of the inheritance of such a shareholding when the registered office of the company is in a Member State, primarily affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU et seq., since that holding enables the shareholder to exert a definite influence over the decisions of that company and to determine its activities. Those Treaty provisions are not intended to apply to a situation concerning a shareholding held in a company which has its registered office in a third country.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-146/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Efkon AG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04, Efkon AG v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

         Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Efkon AG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04, Efkon AG v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-146/08 P)
   (2008/C 171/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Efkon AG (represented by: M. Novak, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2008 under appeal (T-298/04) as unlawful, and direct the Court to follow due process of law and to reach a decision on the merits;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested directive as unlawful, as applied for in the application, and order the defendants to pay the costs;

               —

               declare furthermore that, inasmuch as the order of 22 January 2008 determines an action which was brought on 21 July 2004, the order amounts to a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR owing to the excessive duration of the proceedings and that, on that ground alone, the applicant is to be granted legal redress.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant's appeal against the order of the Court referred to above is based on the erroneous interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and on the procedural irregularities which occurred in the course of the proceedings.
   The Court of First Instance dismissed the application as inadmissible on the ground that the appellant was not directly and individually concerned by the contested measure within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
   That view is incorrect in law. The Court fails to recognise that interference with intellectual property in itself gives rise to an individual and direct concern, which results in an individual and direct concern within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. The nature of a patent is such that a particular person is granted an exclusive right for a limited period of time. Such a right can necessarily be conferred only on a particular person. No one else may exercise those rights; therefore interference with that right through a Community law measure necessarily has the effect of establishing individual and direct concern.
   The Court's argument that there are also other providers of electronic road toll systems besides the appellant who, in certain circumstances, would be affected in the same way as the appellant, and that therefore the appellant is not directly and individually concerned, is not convincing. Direct and individual concern within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC cannot be ruled out by the fact that there are other persons affected by the contested measure if such persons do not in fact have a patent.
   The rejection of the appellant's statement, from which it emerges that the appellant is developing an ISO-CALM Infrared standard for which it has won the State Prize, is invoked as an infringement of the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the four-year duration of the proceedings is also unacceptable and in itself constitutes a serious procedural irregularity.


title: Case T-491/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork)
   (Case T-491/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 314/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Eberl and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 160/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ConnectedWork as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.