title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-146/01: DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 16 December 2003
                                                                                of 17 December 2003
In Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00: Nederlandse Federatie-
ve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch                       in Case T-146/01: DLD Trading Co. v Council of the
Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the                                                  European Union (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the con-
(Decisions, agreements and concerted practices — Sale of
                                                                            duct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link)
electrotechnical fittings in the Netherlands — National
association of wholesalers — Collective exclusive dealing
              and price-fixing agreements — Fines)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/41)
                           (2004/C 71/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            In Case T-146/01, DLD Trading Co., established in Brno (Czech
In Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00, Nederlandse Federative
                                                                            Republic), represented by J. Hintermayr, G. Minichmayr,
Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied,
                                                                            P. Burgstaller and M. Krüger, lawyers, v Council of the
established in the Hague (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                            European Union (Agents: M.-C. Giorgi, A.-M. Colaert and
E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers, applicant in
                                                                            J.-P. Hix), Republic of Austria (Agents: C. Pesendorfer and
Case T-5/00, Technische Unie BV, established in Amstelveen
                                                                            W. Okresek and H. Ossi), Commission of the European
(Netherlands), represented by P. Bos and B. Eschweiler, lawyers,
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Schieferer) and Republic of Finland
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                            (Agents: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski): Application
the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and H. Gilliams),
                                                                            for compensation for damage claimed to have been suffered
supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV, established in
                                                                            by reason of the unlawfulness of, first, Council Regulation (EC)
Rotterdam (Netherlands), and by CEF Holdings Ltd, established
                                                                            No 2744/98 of 14 December 1998 amending Regulation (EC)
in Kenilworth (United Kingdom), represented by C. Vinken-
                                                                            No 355/94 and extending the temporary derogation applicable
Geijselaers and J. Stuyck, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                            to Austria (OJ 1998 L 345, p. 9) and, second, Council Directive
in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                            69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonisation of
Decision 2000/117/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning a
                                                                            provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/
                                                                            action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty
33.884 Nederlandse Federative Vereniging voor de Groothan-
                                                                            on imports in international travel (OJ, English Special Edition
del op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie) (OJ
                                                                            1969 (I), p. 232), as amended, the Court of First Instance (First
2000, L 39, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Lindh and
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
                                                                            H. Legal, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar,
H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 17 December 2003, in which it:
has given a judgment on 16 December 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the applications;                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant in Case T-5/00 to bear its own costs and         2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred
      to pay those of the Commission and of the interveners, including            by the Council;
      those relating to the application for interim measures in Case
      T-5/00 R;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Commission, the Republic of Austria and the
3.    Orders the applicant in Case T-6/00 to bear its own costs and               Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.
      to pay those of the Commission and of the interveners.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000


title: Case T-409/12: Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/19

         Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission
   (Case T-409/12)
   2012/C 343/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Denton, J. Vyavaharkar and R. Browne, Solicitors, and K. Haegeman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4381 final of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines), in so far as it concerns the applicant; or, in the alternative,

               —

               Substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant therein; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons in relation to the calculation of the fine and has breached the principle of sound administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in calculating the multiplier applicable to the applicant and has infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in calculating the multiplier.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in assessing the fine of the applicant in the same way as it assessed the fine to be imposed on the European producers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission erred in failing to take into account economic and technical evidence when assessing the impact of the applicant’s behaviour and in calculating the applicant’s fine.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission erred in determining the duration of the alleged cartel.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission erred in assessing the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons in deciding the proportions of TM T&D’s starting amount to be split between the applicant and another company.

               8.

               Eight plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission erred in its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D, thereby infringing the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that

                           —

                           the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons with respect to its methodology for assigning a starting amount to the applicant for the period prior to the formation of TM T&D.


title: Case T-198/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2011 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07, Strack v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/25

         Appeal brought on 30 March 2011 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07, Strack v Commission
   (Case T-198/11 P)
   2011/C 211/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07;

               —

               set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2009 in Case F-121/07 in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s application for judgment in default;

               —

               set aside the decisions of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by which Case F-121/07 originally assigned to the First Chamber was subsequently assigned to the Second Chamber;

               —

               set aside the decision of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-121/07 not to take into account or not to admit the applicant’s pleading of 2 April 2009 and the applicant’s application contained therein for extension of the claim;

               —

               decide in accordance with the applicant’s form of order sought in the application in Case F-121/07 and the applicant’s pleading in that case of 2 April 2009 and rule against the defendant on the basis of that form of order and the applicant’s further claims in Case F-121/07;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs;

               —

               the applicant additionally, referring to the corresponding settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, seeks compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings of at least EUR 2 500, the precise amount of which he leaves to the discretion of the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 22 grounds of appeal.
   He complains inter alia of lack of jurisdiction of the panel which made the contested decisions; unlawful refusal to give judgment in default; unlawfulness of the extensions of time granted to the Commission; refusal to allow the claim to be extended; failure to carry out the required joinder of the case with other cases between the parties; incorrect account of the facts in the preliminary report for the hearing and in the judgment under appeal; bias on the part of the judge-rapporteur; infringement of the Court’s rules on language; and discrimination against the appellant on linguistic grounds and failure to translate procedural documents.
   The appellant further claims that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law and gave inadequate reasons for its judgment, with reference inter alia to the interpretation and application of Articles 11, 25, 26, 26a and 90 et seq. of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 8, 41, 42, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 et seq. of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) and Article 11 et seq. of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. (2)

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-102/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Focșani — Romania) — Frăsina Bejan v Tudorel Mușat (Rules of Procedure — Articles 92(1) and 103(1) and 104(3), first and second subparagraphs — Approximation of laws — Compulsory motor civil liability insurance system — Optional insurance contract — Inapplicability)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Focșani — Romania) — Frăsina Bejan v Tudorel Mușat
   (Case C-102/10) (1)

   (Rules of Procedure - Articles 92(1) and 103(1) and 104(3), first and second subparagraphs - Approximation of laws - Compulsory motor civil liability insurance system - Optional insurance contract - Inapplicability)
   2011/C 63/28
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Focșani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frăsina Bejan

      Defendant: Tudorel Mușat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judecătoria Focșani — Interpretation of Articles 49, 56, 57 and 59, first subparagraph, 169 TFEU and the Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1983 L 8, p. 17), Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), Directive 2005/14/EC of 11 May 2005 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) and Directive 2009/103/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Motor vehicle liability insurance — Damage caused by insured vehicles — National legislation laying down exclusionary clauses against the interests of consumers — Conditions for exclusion going beyond those provided for by the directives — Possibility for the national court to plead that the risk insurance exclusion clause contract is void

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The compulsory civil liability insurance system in respect of the use of motor vehicles established by

                           —

                           Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability,

                           —

                           the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles,

                           —

                           the Third Council Directive (90/232/EEC) of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles,

                           —

                           Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive); and

                           —

                           Directive 2005/14/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/ECC, 84/5/ECC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.,

                     does not preclude national legislation which provides that the insurer excludes from the cover of the optional insurance contract of a motor vehicle damage caused when that vehicle is driven by a person under the influence of alcohol.

               2.

               The compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles established by the Directives 72/166, 84/5, 90/232, 2000/26 and 2005/14 does not preclude national legislation which does not impose any obligation upon the insurer to compensate immediately, under an optional insurance contract of a motor vehicle, the person insured who suffered harm following an accident and to secure repayment of the amount of the compensation paid to that insured person from the person responsible for the accident, under circumstances in which the insurance does not cover the risk because of an exclusion clause.

               3.

               National legislation which provides that the insurer excludes from the cover of an optional motor vehicle insurance contract the damage caused when that vehicle is driven by a person under the influence of alcohol constitutes both a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. It is for the national court to consider to what extent that restriction is nevertheless permissible under the exceptions expressly provided for by the Treaty on European Union or is justified, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-161/04: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Valero Jordana v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Reserve list for an open competition and individual decisions concerning the appointment of officials — Refusal of access — Exception concerning privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Valero Jordana v Commission
   (Case T-161/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Reserve list for an open competition and individual decisions concerning the appointment of officials - Refusal of access - Exception concerning privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)
   2011/C 238/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Aalto and E. Adserá Ribera, later by: E. Adserá Ribera and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and J. Jørgensen Søren, Agents); Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Kruse and K. Norman, later by: A. Falk, S. Johannesson, K. Petkovska and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, H. Kranenborg and R. Barceló, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 February 2004 refusing the applicant’ request for access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 February 2004 refusing to give Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana access to the reserve list for open competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Valero Jordana's costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs

               5.

               Removes the Kingdom of Denmark as an intervener in Case T-161/04;

               6.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders Mr Valero Jordana, the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden and the EDPS to bear their own costs in regard to the Kingdom of Denmark's intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.06.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 September 2010 — Kingdom of Sweden v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) and European Commission (C-514/07), Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v European Commission (C-528/07), European Commission v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (C-532/07) (Appeals — Right of access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Second and third indents of Article 4(2) — Pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court — Decision of the Commission refusing access)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 September 2010 — Kingdom of Sweden v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) and European Commission (C-514/07), Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v European Commission (C-528/07), European Commission v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (C-532/07)
   (Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Right of access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Second and third indents of Article 4(2) - Pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court - Decision of the Commission refusing access)
   2010/C 317/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      (C-514/07)

      Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: S. Johannesson, A. Falk, K. Wistrand and K. Petkovska, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API), (represented by: S. Völcker and Heithecker, Rechtsanwälte, F. Louis, avocat, C. O’Daly, Solicitor), European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey, V. Kreuschitz and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      (C-528/07)

      Appellant: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat, C. O’Daly, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey, V. Kreuschitz and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents and by J. Coppel, Barrister)

      (C-532/07)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey, V. Kreuschitz and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat, C. O’Daly, Solicitor)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents and J. Coppel, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04 Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court of First Instance annulled in part the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2003 rejecting an application made by the applicant for access to the pleadings lodged by the Commission in certain cases pending before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in connection with the appeal in Case C-514/07 P;

               3.

               Orders the Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in connection with the appeal in Case C-528/07 P;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) in connection with the appeal in Case C-532/07 P;

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs in connection with the appeals.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

      OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-662/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/75

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament
   (Case T-662/15)
   (2016/C 048/83)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8344 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               —

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               —

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               —

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               —

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               —

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-488/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Mdr Inversiones v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/50

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Mdr Inversiones v Commission
   (Case T-488/14)
   2014/C 282/65
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mdr Inversiones, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Linares Gil, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-270/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Devisa v Council and Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Devisa v Council and Commission
   (Case T-270/07)
   (2007/C 223/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Nueva Desmotadora Sevillana, SA (Sevilla, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of two million three hundred and eighty-five thousand five hundred and seventy-one euros (EUR 2 385 571);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-200/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, the other party being Y

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, the other party being Y
   (Case C-200/12)
   2012/C 217/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel

      Other party: Y

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation form a particular social group as referred to in Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304; ‘the Directive’)?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive and, in the case of acts of persecution in respect of those activities and if the other requirements are met, can that lead to the granting of refugee status? That question encompasses the following subquestions:

                           (a)

                           Can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to conceal their orientation from everyone in their country of origin in order to avoid persecution?

                           (b)

                           If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to exercise restraint, and if so, to what extent, when giving expression to that orientation in their country of origin, in order to avoid persecution? Moreover, can greater restraint be expected of homosexuals than of heterosexuals?

                           (c)

                           If, in that regard, a distinction can be made between forms of expression which relate to the core area of the orientation and forms of expression which do not, what should be understood to constitute the core area of the orientation and in what way can it be determined?

               3.

               Do the criminalisation of homosexual activities and the threat of imprisonment in relation thereto, as set out in the Penal Code Act of Uganda, constitute an act of persecution as referred to in Article 9(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(c) of the Directive? If not, under what circumstances would that be the case?


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-277/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/56)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-277/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.


               22.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 480/6

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 9 November 2015 in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State
   (Case E-28/15)
   (2016/C 480/07)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 November 2015 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State on the following question:
   Does Article 7(l)(b) cf. Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC confer derived rights of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of an EEA national who, upon returning from another EEA State, is residing in the EEA State in which the EEA national is a citizen?


title: Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-328/98)

text:
C 327/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
Supplementary to the first three questions:                          Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the French Republic
4. Is a contracting entity which falls within the scope                                       (Case C-327/98)
     ratione personae of Directive 93/38/EEC obliged,                                          (98/C 327/18)
     where a contract concluded by it contains elements of
     a service contract within the meaning of Article 1(4)(a)
     of Directive 93/38/EEC together with elements of a
     different contractual nature which are not within the           An action against the French Republic was brought before
     scope of that directive, to sever the part of the overall       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     contract which is subject to Directive 93/38/EEC, in so         4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
     far as that is technically possible and economically            Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
     reasonable, and make that part the subject of a                 Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of that                national civil servant on secondment to its legal Service,
     directive, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-3/            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     88 (3) before the entry into force of Directive 92/50/          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
     EEC with respect to a contract which was not subject            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     as a whole to Council Directive 77/62/EEC (4)?
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit
5. Is the contractual concession of the exclusive right                  to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
     to operate a service for financial gain, which will                 measures necessary in order to comply with Articles 9,
     give the service provider an income which cannot                    10, 11, 12 and 14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of
     be determined but which in the light of general                     5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions
     experience will not be inconsiderable and may be                    relating to the placing on the market and supervision
     expected to exceed the costs of providing the service,              of explosives for civil uses (1), the French Republic has
     to be regarded as payment for the provision of the                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
     service, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-272/
     91 (5) in connection with a supply contract and a right
     ceded by the public authorities in lieu of payment?             Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Supplementary to the above questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6. Are the provisions of Article 1(4)(a) and (c) of
     Directive 93/38/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that           Under Article 19(1) of Directive 93/15/EEC, Member
     a contract which provides for the provision of services         States are required to bring into force the provisions
     within the meaning of Annex XVI A, category 15,                 necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
     loses the nature of a service contract and becomes a            of that directive before 30 September 1993.
     supply contract if the result of the service is the
     production of a large number of identical tangible
     objects which have an economic value and thus                   The Commission has received no communication from
     constitute goods within the meaning of Articles 9 and           the French authorities regarding the adoption of the
     30 of the EC Treaty?                                            provisions referred to above.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
7. Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-3/88
     to be interpreted as meaning that such a supply
     contract is to be severed from the other components
     of the service contract and made the subject of a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of Directive           Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
     93/38/EEC, in so far as this is technically possible and        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     economically reasonable?                                                                     Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-328/98)
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                                                 (98/C 327/19)
(3) [1989] ECR 4035.
(4) OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1.
(5) [1992] ECR I-3929.                                               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/13
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Ð declare that, by failing to communicate and to adopt
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             necessary in order to comply with Commission
                                                                      Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July 1995 relating to methods
                                                                      of analysis necessary for checking the composition of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           cosmetic products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    period, the laws, regulations or administrative
    provisions necessary to comply with European                  Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC (1) of
    20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time
    Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
    the Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and         Article 2 of Commission Directive 95/32/EC requires the
    preparations or by failing to inform the Commission           Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations
    thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under the EC Treaty; and                          that directive by no later than 30 September 1996.
Ð Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                  That deadline has expired but the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                  has not yet taken the requisite internal steps to transpose
                                                                  the directive in issue.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  (1) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 20.
Under Article 2(1) of European Parliament and Council
Directive 94/60/EC, Member States are to adopt and
publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with the directive no later than one
year after the date of its adoption.
That time-limit expired on 20 December 1994 without the           Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission
Kingdom of Belgium having adopted and published the                      of the European Communities against Ireland
necessary provisions in order to comply therewith.                                         (Case C-331/98)
                                                                                (98/C 327/21)
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                  An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                  1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                  represented by Richard Wainwright, principal legal
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission              adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                            Belgium                               member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                  Wagner, Kirchberg.
                       (Case C-329/98)
                        (98/C 327/20)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           Ð declare that by not prohibiting Irish sanitary
on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European                 authorities from making any direct discharges of List I
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal                substances to groundwater nor subjecting such
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in              authorities to any system of prior investigation and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  authorization for direct discharges of List II
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             substances, contrary, in particular, to Articles 3, 4 and


title: Case T-153/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/25

         Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-153/05)
   (2005/C 155/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 2005 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz, residing in Brussels, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the evaluation exercise 2003 in relation to the applicant,

               2.

               alternatively, annul the applicant's career development report for the period 1.1.2003-31.12.2003;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant in the present case are identical to those put forward in Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.


title: Case T-312/00: Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra Tavares against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/36                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
Action brought on 28 September 2000 by British Amer-                      invoking any exception to the Access Rules (2). Accordingly
ican Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Com-                       the applicant holds that the Access Rules in general and its
             mission of the European Communities                          right of access in particular have been infringed.
                                                                          (1) Proposal for a directive of the European Parlament and of the
                          (Case T-311/00)
                                                                              Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
                                                                              manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (recast
                          (2000/C 355/76)                                     version) (COM/99/594 final).
                                                                          (2) Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
                                                                              1994, on public access to Commission documents (OJ L 46,
                                                                              p. 58).
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 September 2000 by British
American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, represented by Scott              Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra
Crosby, Solicitor, of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.             Tavares against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case T-312/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/77)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 September
      2000 refusing access to the range of international scien-
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      tific research on which proposal Com 1999(594) final
      was based, to the records of the Commission’s assessment
      thereof and to the minutes of the Cancer Experts Com-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      mittee, the High level Cancer Experts Committee and the             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Advisory Committee for Cancer Prevention (the Cancer                European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra
      Committees) assessing said range of international scien-            Tavares, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Louis Tinti of
      tific research, all as specified in the request for access of       the Luxembourg Bar.
      6 June 2000;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant           —     annul the implied decision rejecting her application
      to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of                   lodged in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
      First Instance.                                                           lations in so far as it refuses to grant her the installation
                                                                                allowance laid down by Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the
                                                                                Staff Regulations and the daily subsistence allowance laid
                                                                                down by Article 10(1) of that annex;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission to account to the applicant for the
                                                                                sums due in respect of the installation allowance and the
                                                                                daily subsistence allowance, plus interest for delay at the
The applicant is a company belonging to the British American                    rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on which the
Tobacco (BAT) group of companies. The principal activity of                     amounts became due;
the BAT group is the manufacture, distribution and sale of
tobacco products. On 6 June 2000, it requested access to two              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
categories of documents in connection with the Commission
proposal for a directive on tobacco products (1). The first               Pleas in law and main arguments
category comprised documents containing scientific evidence
about tobacco products and the second comprised documents
                                                                          In support of her action, the applicant claims:
containing scientific evidence on the behaviour of consumers.
                                                                          —     Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 5(1) of
                                                                                Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of officials. That
The applicant maintains that the administrative procedure has                   provision, as interpreted by the case-law, provides that
revealed that a number of documents exist or may be presumed                    an official who is granted an expatriation allowance is
to exist which are Commission documents and are within the                      automatically entitled to receive an installation allowance.
scope of the request for access. None of these documents                        It was thus on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of
having been forwarded or otherwise made accessible to the                       the above provision that the contested decision refuses
applicant, it infers that the Commission has rejected its request               the installation allowance to the applicant, whereas the
for access, but without giving any reasons for non-access or                    expatriation allowance was granted to her.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/37
—     Infringement of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff               —     failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      Regulations. The applicant was entitled to the daily                     officials;
      subsistence allowance laid down by that provision, since
      she was required to change her place of residence to               —     infringement of Community rules on free movement for
      Luxembourg for the sole purpose of being able to carry                   workers;
      out the work for which she was employed, whereas the
      centre of her interests remained in Portugal.                      —     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA
Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra                       against Commission of the European Communities
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-317/00)
                         (Case T-313/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/79)
                         (2000/C 355/78)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli
European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd                      SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar, Matteo
Feenstra, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-           Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                              Venice Bar, and Eduardo De Simone, of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      27 September 1999 grading the applicant in Grade A 7,              —     annul the contested decision in whole or in part in so far
      step 3;                                                                  as it concerns the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      sed, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                         S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                         with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition             decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
COM/A/764, contests the appointing authority’s decision to               number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
grade him, on establishment, at Grade A 7, step 3.                       70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                         specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The present case has been brought against the decision of the
—     manifest error of assessment;                                      Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                         rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                         of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
—     infringement of Articles 31(2) and 32 of the Staff                 2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
      Regulations;                                                       the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                         prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;                     were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders v. (1) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection Office, and (2) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT Inspectorate (Case C-47/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 95/ 13
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the               Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Bruges, of
      other existing financial instruments make the recipients         6 February 1996, which was received at the Court Registry
      of Community subsidies subject to the review                     on 16 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      procedures within the meaning of Directive                       BVBA Sanders v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance,
      89/665/EEC, even if they themselves are not contracting          VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
      authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive         person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
      93/37/EEC ?                                                      Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
                                                                       Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
0 ) OJ No L 199 , 1993 , p . 54.                                       person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT
( 2 ) OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p . 5 .                                     Inspectorate on the following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 185 , 1988 , p . 9 .
                                                                       1 . Must Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
                                                                           interpreted as permitting a Member State, instead of
                                                                           refunding to a taxable person a VAT credit for a given
                                                                           tax period, or carrying it forward to a subsequent tax
                                                                           period, to 'withhold' the same by way of protective
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                attachment on the basis of an additional demand in
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January                     respect of an earlier tax period, where that additional
1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken- und                             demand is contested in law and is thus not based on any
             Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger                            definitive entitlement, and where the Member State has
                          ( Case C-45/96 )                                 not obtained authorization pursuant to Article 27 of the
                                                                           VAT Directive ?
                            ( 96/C 95/23 )
                                                                       2 . In the event that Question 1 is answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     affirmative :
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
( Federal Court of Justice ) of 11 January 1996, which was                 do the principle of proportionality enshrined in
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996 , for a                 Community law and Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT
preliminary ruling in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken                   Directive permit the Member State to provide :
und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger on the following
question :                                                                 ( 1 ) that the taxable person may contest the attachment
                                                                                ( as validated by the 'withholding' measure ) only by
where a contract of suretyship is concluded under German                         adducing evidence rebutting the allegations made
law between a financial institution and a natural person
                                                                                by the Treasury in the official report, and not by
                                                                                challenging the actual need for, and urgency of, that
who is not acting in that connection in the course of his trade
                                                                                measure ;
or profession, in order to secure a claim by the financial
institution against a third party in respect of a loan, is it              ( 2 ) that withholding may not be replaced by another
covered by the words 'contracts under which a trader                             form of security nor lifted pending the delivery of
supplies goods or services to a consumer' ( Article 1 ( 1 ) of                   final judgment on the contested demand for
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
                                                                                payment made by the Treasury ?
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises, OJ No L 372 , 31 . 12 . 1985 ,
p. 31 )?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of                                    ( Case C-52/96 )
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that
court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders                                              ( 96/C 95/25
v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT          21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                Communities, represented by Julian Currall and F. Enrique
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT                    Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, with an address for
                             Inspectorate                              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                       de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
                          ( Case C-47/96 )
                                                                       Kirchberg.
                            ( 96/ C 95/24 )
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Beslagrechter ( judge             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures
hearing attachment proceedings ) of the Rechtbank van                      necessary to ensure that officials of the Community


title: Case T-352/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M. Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 61/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio Lebedef                    In support of his application, the applicant pleads:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —    infringement of the framework agreement concluded
                                                                              between the Commission and the OSPs in 1974, on
                        (Case T-349/00)                                       account of the absence of any objective examination of
                                                                              the representativity of the OSPs and a manifest error in
                                                                              the comparative assessment of that representativity;
                         (2001/C 61/27)
                                                                         —    breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                              discrimination;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                              interests;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                —    infringement of the rights of the defence;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio                      —    breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary methods, of
Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented                  the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of
by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar.                                     the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                              officials;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    abuse of powers and improper exercise of authority.
—     annul the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels,
      the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed
      between the majority of the trade unions/staff associ-
      ations (‘the OSPs’) and the administration of the Com-
      mission on 19.1.2000;
                                                                         Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M.
—     alternatively, annul the composition of the consultation           Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      body as provided for by those rules in so far as it                                        Internal Market
      excludes the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from such
      consultations;                                                                             (Case T-352/00)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 17.2.2000 refusing                                       (2001/C 61/28)
      to grant the applicant leave to attend, on a mission basis,
      the meeting of the ‘Ad hoc working group on staff reports
      and proposals for the promotion of staff on secondment                               (Language of the case: English)
      and staff elected or designated to fulfil certain functions’
      or to engage on the same basis in any other activity in
      the context of staff representation.                               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 20 November 2000 by
                                                                         Andrew M. Rosemarine, represented by James Davis, of the
                                                                         Aire Centre, London.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should order the OHIM to:
The applicant, a Commission official, seeks annulment of the
                                                                         —    compensate for:
operational rules in issue on the ground that they exclude
from the consultation body the trade union known as ‘Action
& Défense’, of which he is a one of the leaders. He also seeks                —     the sum of the value of the job
annulment of an individual decision taken against him,
refusing to grant him leave to engage in his trade-union                      —     the loss of enjoyment of having a job in Alicante
activities on a mission basis on the ground that such missions
must be restricted exclusively to the OSPs represented on the                 —     the inconvenience of these appeals to the OHIM and
consultation body.                                                                  the Court;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/15
—     and to pay for all costs.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a grade C Commission official, is contesting the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission’s decision refusing to admit her to the tests in
                                                                          competition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list
The applicant explains that the Office for Harmonisation in               of administrative assistants, senior administrative assistants
the Internal Market (OHIM) published an advertisement for a               and principal administrative assistants (grades B5/B4, B3/B2
job as a lawyer-linguist. Before going to the trouble of sending          and B1), on the ground that she did not possess the pro-
in a full application pack for the job, he wrote to check that            fessional experience required in category B.
his age would not be held against him. In answer to his letter,
the OHIM sent him the application forms, stressed the                     The applicant complains that the Commission unlawfully
importance of relevant ‘qualifications and experience’, and               refused to take account of the professional experience gained
raised no objection to his age. Nevertheless, in August 2000              by her in a category C job at a level corresponding to the
he was rejected on the grounds that he was a year older than              duties to be performed.
the OHIM wished.
                                                                          Although the competition notice may have provided that the
In these circumstances, the applicant claims compensation on              candidates were to have acquired the professional experience
the basis of the illegality of the OHIM’s decision on the grounds         relating to category B, that condition and the contested
of discrimination in the OHIM’s employment procedure                      decision taken on the basis of the notice are equally vitiated by
(ageism) and breach of vested rights and legitimate expec-                illegality.
tations.
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martı́-                     Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
nez Alarcón against the Commission of the European                       Cherenti against the Commission of the European Com-
                            Communities                                                                munities
                          (Case T-357/00)                                                          (Case T-361/00)
                           (2001/C 61/29)                                                           (2001/C 61/30)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Justina                       European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Martı́nez Alarcón, residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos           Cherenti, residing at Thuin (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                             Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-             —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                            board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that                    the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing                  decision of the appointing authority dated 7 September
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative                          2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;                     ted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant          —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 3 160 000, subject to alteration during                    the sum of BEF 7 350 000, subject to alteration during
      the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
      for material and non-material damage;                                     for material and non-material damage;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-542/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CIRCON — Prior Community word mark CIRCULON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Highly distinctive character — Goodwill — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure before the Board of Appeal — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)
   (Case T-542/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CIRCON - Prior Community word mark CIRCULON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Highly distinctive character - Goodwill - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Procedure before the Board of Appeal - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: R. Manea, and subsequently by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: M. Fiedler, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd and XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2010 (Case R 40/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by XXXLutz Marken GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-34/10: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT — Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/18

         Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
   (Case T-34/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MAGIC LIGHT - Earlier national word mark MAGIC LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 38/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 656/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rüdiger Bartmann and Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Action brought on 17 January 1996 by Francesco Perillo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-7/96)

text:
No C 95/ 16           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
in the general assessment in comparison with the previous           that report, which was drawn up without involving all the
two-year period was not reflected in the detailed marking.          parties concerned, as all such investigations, if properly
Accordingly the staff report was drawn up in infringement           conducted, should, contains several inaccuracies from the
of the relevant rules and the principle of sound                    technical point of view. On 21 April 1994 Somagaz
administration and there was a misuse of powers . Further,          unilaterally terminated the contract, despite having used the
the applicant relies on the one hand on infringement of his         bottles in first as well as the second batch .
rights of defence, since he was not given the opportunity of
defending his interests, and, on the other hand, of                 The applicant claims that the Commission's staff have not
infringement of the duty to state reasons, in view of the fact      taken any steps to authorize payment for the goods
that the Secretary-General of the Parliament to whom the            consigned, causing the applicant significant damage, which
applicant appealed, did not give reasons for his negative           is not only economic; Itamsider has had to bear the costs of
decision .                                                          production and dispatch to Mauritania, without being paid,
                                                                    and as a result finds itself in an extremely difficult financial
                                                                    position, to the extent of suffering an action for the
                                                                    commencement of bankruptcy proceedings .
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
                                                                    the matter entails liability on the part of the Community, in
Action brought on 17 January 1996 by Francesco Perillo              accordance with Article 178 and the second paragraph of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                Article 215 of the EC Treaty, and requests that the
                                                                    Commission be ordered to pay him compensation to make
                         ( Case T-7/96 )
                                                                    good the loss he has suffered.
                           ( 96/C 95/32
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Europeenne
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January 1996                                      Communities
by Francesco Perillo, residing at Altamura ( Italy ),
represented by Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                   Case T-9/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre                                  ( 96/C 95/33 )
Thielen, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay compensation of ECU                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    1 338 775 , subject to increase or decrease during the          Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1996
    proceedings,                                                    by Europeenne Automobile SARL, established at
                                                                    Carcassonne ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
— order the defendant to pay interest calculated on the             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    amounts due as from 14 April 1994,                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                    Beatrix de Bourbon .
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay to it the sum of
                                                                        ECU 200 000 as damages for the Commission's
The applicant, who manufactures gas-bottles under the                   non-contractual liability,
name of Itamsider, states that when tenders were invited
under call No 3605 of the Regional Gas Programme,
financed by the European Development Fund, he secured              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the contract to supply 40 000 empty gas-bottles to Societe
Mauritanienne de Gaz ( Somagaz ). To fulfil its duties under        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract, Itamsider sent the goods to Mauritania in four
batches : 7 007 bottles on 5 October 1993 , 24 381 on              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
1 December 1993 , 6 779 on 7 February 1994 and 1 889 on             intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by means
14 February 1994; the goods were stored in the port and             of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final consumer
subsequently removed by Somagaz . Somagaz was critical of           in accordance with the provisions of Commission
the quality of the bottles but without giving much detail . On      Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , criticizes the failure of that
1 March 1994, on the initiative of the Commission's                 institution to respond, first, to the complaint submitted by it
representative in Mauritania , an expert's report on the first     to DG IV on 27 July 1994 criticizing the steps taken by the
batch of bottles was drawn up . The applicant maintains that        PSA Group in relation to the Peugeot concessionaires of its


title: Case F-5/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — Brune v Commission (Civil service — General competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Conduct of the oral test — Stability of the selection board)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — Brune v Commission
   (Case F-5/08) (1)

   (Civil service - General competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Conduct of the oral test - Stability of the selection board)
   2011/C 30/107
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Markus Brune (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to place the applicant on the reserve list in Competition AD/26/05 because of the insufficiency of his oral test.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 May 2007 not to place Mr Brune on the reserve list in Competition EPSO/AD/26/05;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 69.


title: Case C-207/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/3

         Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-207/15 P)
   (2015/C 262/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister, D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (Case T-572/12);

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the Appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 47 of Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), (‘CTMR’). In particular, it erred in holding that Article 47 does not permit sequential requests for renewal. Incidental to its erroneous interpretation of Art 47 CTMR the General Court erred in its interpretation of Art 48 CTMR in holding that it applied only to the sign of the Community Trade Mark.

               a.

               The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court is inconsistent.

               b.

               The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court calls for de facto surrender of part of the mark in terms contrary to those provided for under Art 50 CTMR.

               c.

               The requirement for legal certainty called for by the General Court arises from the actions taken by OHIM. It is not inherent to the interpretation of Art 47(3) given by the General Court and legal certainty is equally possible under the Appellant’s interpretation. In the present case, the actions of OHIM were carried out on the basis that the mark had been surrendered, which the General Court held was an error of law.

               d.

               The interpretation of Art 47(3) advanced by the Appellant is not precluded by the wording of the Article.

               e.

               The interpretation of Art 48 wrongly concludes that Article is concerned only with the sign of which the Community trade mark is composed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1