title: Case F-41/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/28

         Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL
   (Case F-41/15)
   (2015/C 178/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others

      Defendant: European Police College (CEPOL)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) leading the applicants either to resign from their posts at CEPOL or to move from London to Budapest at a financial loss, and application for damages for material and non-material harm allegedly caused thereby.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of CEPOL No 17/2014/DIR dated 23 May 2014, providing for the relocation of CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, as from 1 October 2014 and informing the applicants that ‘Non-compliance with this instruction will be considered as resignation with the effect of 30 September 2014’;

               —

               annul, also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions dated 28 November 2014, rejecting the applicants’ complaints lodged between 8 and 21 August 2014 against the aforementioned decision;

               —

               annul also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL ‘accepted’ the resignation of two of the applicants;

               —

               compensate the material prejudice suffered by the applicants;

               —

               compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the applicants;

               —

               order CEPOL to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants for the present appeal.


title: Case T-327/00: Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 372/14              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.12.2000
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA                        The authorities in question in fact endorsed the validity of the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      ATR 1 certificates issued, proving that they were not misled
                                                                          by declarations made by the exporting companies. The main
                                                                          argument put forward by the Commission that in the present
                        (Case T-327/00)                                   case there was no ‘inward-processing’ error on the part of the
                                                                          authorities thus fails.
                        (2000/C 372/28)
                                                                          The question as to whether the other two conditions laid down
                                                                          in Article 222 were fulfilled was contested by the Commission
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        only indirectly.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 So far as concerns the alleged error of interpretation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                rule against intermingling, the applicant claims that the
European Communities on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food                      Commission’s certainty that mingling of Turkish and Com-
SpA, represented by Roberto Delfino, of the Genoa Bar,                    munity goods was prohibited caused the Community inspec-
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, Flora Santaniello, of the                tors to fail to calculate the proportion of raw material
Lecce Bar, Daniele P. Domenicucci, of the Pescara Bar, with an            originating in third countries and to verify to what extent, if
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain                any, it exceeded the tolerance level (10 %) provided for by the
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I                                                   Decision of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
      2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with the
      post-clearance recovery, under Article 220(2)(b) of the
      Community Customs Code, of import duties in respect
      of three consignments of tuna from Turkey covered by                Action brought on 24 October 2000 by Mario Costacurta
      IM4 documents No 548/P of 8 September 1995,                           against the Commission of the European Communities
      No 866/E of 9 January 1996, and No 2656/H of
      24 January 1996;
                                                                                (Case T-328/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                                (2000/C 372/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The present case concerns the challenge by the Community
authorities of the ATR 1 certificates issued by Turkey in respect         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the release into free circulation, by customs at Genoa, of             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
three consignments of tinned tuna purchased from the Turkish              European Communities on 24 October 2000 by Mario
undertaking Kervitas. The Community authorities argued that               Costacurta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit,
most of the raw material used in the manufacture of the                   of the Luxembourg Bar.
exported products was not of exclusively Turkish origin and
that the undertakings involved had not physically separated               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the raw material of Turkish origin from the rest.
                                                                          —    annul the implied rejection of the Commission of the
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of                European Communities of his request of 6 June 2000;
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, breach of
the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to                 —    order that the applicant be re-assigned to a third country
provide a statement of reasons as provided for in Article 253                  with effect from 1 September 2000, pursuant to Article 3
of the EC Treaty.                                                              of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
So far as concerns Article 220 of the abovementioned Code,                —    order the Commission of the European Communities to
the applicant claims that, assuming that the post-clearance                    pay all the costs of the proceedings;
recovery of the duties was well-founded (which is at the very
least doubtful) and that the Turkish authorities had committed            —    reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas and
an error when issuing the certificate of origin, such an error                 actions, in particular with regard to compensation for
should be characterised as an ‘inward-processing error’.                       damage.


title: Case C-359/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — Ömer Altun and Others, Absa NV and Others v Openbaar Ministerie

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — Ömer Altun and Others, Absa NV and Others v Openbaar Ministerie
   (Case C-359/16)
   (2016/C 335/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

      Respondent: Openbaar Ministerie

      Question referred

   Can an E101 certificate issued under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as applicable before its repeal by Article 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be annulled or disregarded by a court other than that of the sending Member State if the facts which are submitted to its scrutiny support the conclusion that the certificate was obtained or invoked fraudulently?

      (1)  (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).


title: Case T-218/14: Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Mabrouk v Council

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/77

         Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Mabrouk v Council
   (Case T-218/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/89)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-119/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014  — Henricus Cornelis Maria Niessen and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014 — Henricus Cornelis Maria Niessen and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-119/14)
   2014/C 159/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Henricus Cornelis Maria Niessen, Angelique Francisca Niessen-Steeghs, Melissa Alexandra Johanna Niessen, Kenneth Gerardus Henricus Niessen

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-252/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (Appeal — Public procurement — European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) — Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application — Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid — Contract award criteria — Sub-criteria — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
   (Case C-252/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public procurement - European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) - Call for tenders relating to the ‘SafeSeaNet’ application - Decision rejecting a tenderer’s bid - Contract award criteria - Sub-criteria - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 269/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: J. Menze, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaaten)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05 (Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA) in so far it dismissed the appellant’s application for the annulment of the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (‘EMSA’) of 6 January 2005 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in a tendering procedure relating to the validation of the SafeSeaNet application and its further development

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-48/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen): Firma Söhl & Söhlke v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation — Exceeding of time-limits for the customs clearance of non-Community goods in temporary storage — Failure having "no significant effect on the correct operation of the temporary storage or customs procedure in question" — Extension of period — "Obvious negligence")

text:
C 47/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            19.2.2000
certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic                    the proceedings pending before that court between Firma Söhl
environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23),                        & Söhlke and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation
programmes including quality objectives to reduce pollution                 of Articles 49, 204 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC)
by the substances in List II of the annex to that directive, the            No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 212a of
under the EC Treaty, — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed                   Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation (EC)
of R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for                No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
the President of the Sixth Chamber (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch                  19 December 1996 (OJ 1997, L 17, p. 1) and on the validity
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,                      and interpretation of Article 859 and the interpretation of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                Articles 900 and 905 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
trar, has given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it:                No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
                                                                            implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
1. Declares that, by not adopting, in accordance with Article 7 of          p. 1), as amended by Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation
     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 346, p. 1)
     caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the             — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
     aquatic environment of the Community, programmes including             (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
     quality objectives to reduce pollution by 99 substances on List 1      President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
     of the annex to the directive, which under the first indent of List    malm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
     II must be treated as List 11 substances, the Federal Republic of      Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;      11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            1. Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
                                                                                of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                                Community Customs Code contains a validly constituted and
                                                                                exhaustive set of rules on failures, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                                which ‘have no significant effect on the correct operation of the
                                                                                temporary storage or customs procedure in question’.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                  2. (a) The terms used to qualify negligence in the German version
                                                                                of Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and
                       of 11 November 1999                                           of the Council of 19 December 1996, Article 239 of
                                                                                Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 859 of Regulation
in Case C-48/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                             No 2454/93 have one and the same meaning. In the
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Firma Söhl & Söhlke v                                     German version those terms must be understood as referring
                     Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)                                         to ‘offensichtliche Fahrlässigkeit’ (obvious negligence).
(Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation
— Exceeding of time-limits for the customs clearance of                         (b) It is not possible to conclude that there was no obvious
non-Community goods in temporary storage — Failure                                   negligence within the meaning of the second indent of
having ‘no significant effect on the correct operation of the                        Article 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where a customs
temporary storage or customs procedure in question’ —                                debt is incurred pursuant to Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation
          Extension of period — ‘Obvious negligence’)                                No 2913/92 as a result of behaviour which constitutes
                                                                                obvious negligence within the meaning of the second indent
                            (2000/C 47/03)                                           of Article 859 of Regulation No 2454/93.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (c) In order to determine whether there is ‘obvious negligence’
                                                                                within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239(1)
                                                                                of Regulation No 2913/92, account must be taken in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                particular of the complexity of the provisions non-compliance
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                with which has resulted in the customs debt being incurred
                                                                                and the professional experience of, and the care taken by, the
In Case C-48/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                         trader. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                            of those criteria, whether there is obvious negligence on the
(Finance Court) Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                         part of the trader.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/3
3. Community law does not preclude a national court from                        the sole ground that he is in a situation referred to in
   determining independently whether the criterion laid down in                 Article 900(1)(o) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by
   Article 859(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, namely that the                     Article 1(29) of Regulation No 3254/94.
   time-limit ought to have been extended, is fulfilled where an
   application for an extension made in time has been refused by a         (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
   now unappealable decision of the customs authority.
4. (a) Only circumstances liable to put the applicant in an
        exceptional situation in relation to other traders carrying on
        the same activity can justify an extension of the time-limit                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        referred to in Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2913/92.
        Exceptional circumstances which, although not unknown to                                       (Fifth Chamber)
        the trader, are not events which would normally confront any
        trader in the exercise of his occupation may constitute such                               of 11 November 1999
        circumstances. It is for the customs authorities and the
        national courts to determine in each case whether such             in Case C-315/98: Commission of the European Communi-
        circumstances exist.                                                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 95/21/EC)
   (b) Community law does not preclude a trader from lodging a
        single application for an extension of the prescribed time-                                     (2000/C 47/04)
        limit for assigning to goods covered by several summary
        declarations a customs-approved treatment or use. However,
        even in the case of a single application, the time-limit may                             (Language of the case: Italian)
        be extended only in respect of goods in relation to which the
        prescribed time-limit for assigning a customs-approved             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
        treatment or use has not yet expired.                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-315/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: B. Mongin and L. Pignataro) v Italian Republic (Agents:
5. Article 900(1)(o) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by               Professor U. Leanza assisted by D. Del Gaizo) — Application
   Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/94 of
                                                                           for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
   19 December 1994, applies to cases in which the goods would             and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council
   have been eligible for Community treatment or preferential tariff       Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforce-
   treatment, but not to cases in which the goods would have been
                                                                           ment, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
   eligible for other forms of favourable treatment.                       sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member
                                                                           States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution
                                                                           prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port
6. The customs authority or national court to which an application         State control) (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1), the Italian Republic has
   is submitted for repayment on the basis of Article 900(1)(o) of         failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and the EC
   Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Article 1(29) of                   Treaty, — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of D.A.O.
   Regulation No 3254/94, is required, where it is unable to grant         Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
   the repayment applied for pursuant to that provision, to examine        L. Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet,
   of its own motion the merits of that application in the light of        Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
   the other provisions of Article 900 and Articles 901 to 904 of          given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it has
   Regulation No 2454/93. Where the decision-making authority              ruled:
   is not in a position, on the basis of the grounds adduced, to take
                                                                           1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
   a decision to repay or remit duties on the basis of Article 899 of
                                                                                provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 95/21/EC
   Regulation No 2454/93, it is required to examine of its own
                                                                                of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of
   motion whether there is any evidence ‘which might constitute a
                                                                                shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under
   special situation resulting from circumstances in which no
                                                                                the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards
   deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person
                                                                                for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and
   concerned’ within the meaning of Article 905(1) of Regulation
                                                                                working conditions (port State control) within the prescribed
   No 2454/93 which would necessitate examination of the file by
                                                                                period, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
   the Commission.
                                                                                under that directive.
                                                                           2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
7. Where an application is made for the repayment or remission of
   import or export duties, the customs authority or national court        (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
   cannot assume that the person concerned has not acted with any
   fraudulent intent or in a manner which is obviously negligent on


title: Case F-47/09: Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Fries Guggenheim v CEDEFOP

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/52

         Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Fries Guggenheim v CEDEFOP
   (Case F-47/09)
   2009/C 153/101
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eric Mathias Fries Guggenheim (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: L. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of CEDEFOP’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, should the applicant not be reinstated, an order that the defendant pay him damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 7 July 2008 not to renew the applicant’s contract and confirming that his employment will end on 15 October 2008;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, CEDEFOP’s decision of 18 July 2008 confirming the first decision, following the applicant’s letter of 9 July 2008 and his meeting on 17 July 2008 with the representatives of personnel;

               —

               Order CEDEFOP to pay the applicant, should he not be reinstated, damages of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal to compensate for his non-material harm;

               —

               Allow the applicant, should he consider it necessary, to value the detriment to his career and, if not, order CEDEFOP to pay him damages to compensate for that detriment, should he not be reinstated, of an amount to be assessed by the Tribunal;

               —

               Order CEDEFOP to pay the costs.


title: Case T-150/17: Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/34

         Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)
   (Case T-150/17)
   (2017/C 129/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLÜGEL’ — EU trade mark No 637 686

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 in Case R 282/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

               —

               order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjuction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-309/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P. and Others

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P. and Others
   (Case C-309/16)
   (2016/C 335/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P., Corbin Capital Partners, Redwood Drawdown Master Fund, L.P., Redwood Opportunity Master Fund Ltd, Redwood Capital Management LLC, Pontus Holdings Ltd, RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl

      Defendant: FMA Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 2014/59/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, in particular Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(2) thereof, applicable ratione temporis and ratione materiae to the case of a resolution company like that in the main proceedings whose resolution had already been started, through mechanisms provided for at national level, before the expiry of the period for transposition of the directive and continues to be carried out in the period after the expiry of the period for transposition on the basis of the national rules transposing the abovementioned directive?

               2.

               Does Directive 2014/59/EU confer on creditors of such a resolution company which have applied to the resolution authority, requesting it to ‘examine and prohibit’ the conclusion with other creditors of certain legal transactions planned or already entered into by the resolution company (for example a court arrangement with creditors), rights for whose protection they have access to an administrative and judicial procedure?

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.


title: Case C-419/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/23

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA
   (Case C-419/17 P)
   (2017/C 293/28)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15,

               —

               annul the decision of the ECHA of 12 December 2014, No ED/108/2014,

               —

               order the ECHA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly.
               The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly. The appellant remains of the view that the decision of the ECHA was adopted ultra vires, since (i) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEHP under Article 57(c) of REACH by a new identification of that substance under Article 57(f) of REACH; (ii) the adoption of the decision of the ECHA was preceded by an unlawful procedure; and (iii) the decision of the ECHA circumvents the legally binding procedure laid down by the Council and the European Parliament for the adoption of generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties.

               2.

               The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.
               Where (i) the decision of the ECHA created an unclear, imprecise and unforeseeable legal situation, which makes it impossible for the appellant to find out the precise extent of the obligations imposed on it; (ii) there are no generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and (iii) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEPH under Article 57(c) of REACH by an identification of it under Article 57(f) of REACH, the General Court’s conclusion that the decision of the ECHA does not conflict with the principle of legal certainty is incorrect.

               3.

               The General Court reviewed the decision of the ECHA in a manner conflicting with the requirements of judicial review of the decisions of EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence.

               4.

               As a consequence of the defects set out above, the General Court infringed the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair procedure, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case C-245/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Contractor established in a Member State — Recourse to contracting partners established in the same Member State — Purely internal situation — Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid
   (Case C-245/09) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - Contractor established in a Member State - Recourse to contracting partners established in the same Member State - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)
   2011/C 63/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Omalet NV

      Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — Social legislation — Undertaking established in Belgium and having recourse to subcontractors which are also established in that Member State but are not registered with the national authorities — Whether or not Article 49 EC is applicable

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 25 June 2009, is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-563/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — De Luca v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Staff case — Officials — Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional provisions — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — De Luca v Commission
   (Case T-563/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2012/C 32/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the cross-appeals.

               2.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000.

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               4.

               The costs are reserved

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case C-19/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulations (EC) Nos 273/2004 and 111/2005 — Drug precursors — Control and monitoring within the Union — Monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries — Penalties)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-19/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulations (EC) Nos 273/2004 and 111/2005 - Drug precursors - Control and monitoring within the Union - Monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries - Penalties)
   2010/C 246/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and S. Mortoni, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1) and Art. 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the national measures necessary for the implementation, first, of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and, secondly, of Art. 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.


               26.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/14

         Order of the EFTA Court of 9 November 2012
   2013/C 277/11
   In Case E-14/10 COSTS,
   Konkurrenten.no AS against EFTA Surveillance Authority,

      (Taxation of costs)

   In Case E-14/10 COSTS, Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the taxation of costs recoverable following the judgment of the Court of 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no v ESA (2011) EFTA Ct. Rep. 266 — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; has made an Order of 9 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Konkurrenten.no AS is fixed at EUR 93 002.


title: Case C-469/11 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/13

         Appeal brought on 14 September 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-469/11 P)
   2011/C 331/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Order of the General Court in case T-409/09,

               —

               reject in its entirety the Plea of Inadmissibility submitted by the Commission,

               —

               refer to the General Court the case in order to Judge the substance of the case,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               The General Court erred in law by not applying the provision of article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure which refers to the extension on account of distance by a single period of 10 days to cases arriving to establish the non-contractual liability of the European Institutions.

               —

               The General Court, by not applying the provisions of article 102(2), infringed the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by accepting that the limitation period began to run as from the time the Commission's decision to reject the appellant's tender was communicated to the appellant.


title: Case C-372/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 September 2009 — Josep Penarroja Fa v Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 September 2009 — Josep Penarroja Fa v Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris
   (Case C-372/09)
   2009/C 282/50
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josep Penarroja Fa

      Defendant: Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 50 EC be interpreted as applying to the duties entrusted to a professional, acting as an expert, in a dispute brought before the national courts, and appointed by the court seised of the dispute, under the conditions described [in the order for reference]?

               2.

               Must the connection with the exercise of official authority, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, be interpreted as applying to the duties of an expert appointed by a French court, as governed by the French Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and by Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004?

               3.

               Must Articles 43 EC and 49 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that resulting from Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004, as amended, which makes enrolment on a register maintained by a cour d’appel subject to conditions relating to age, competence, character and independence, and which does not take into account the fact that the applicant has already been recognised as an expert by the courts of his State of origin or introduce other arrangements for assessing his competence?


title: Case T-160/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gerasimos Potamianos against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/12

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gerasimos Potamianos against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-160/04)
   (2004/C 168/23)
   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 26 April 2004 by Gerasimos Potamianos, residing in Brimbergen (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to renew his contract as a temporary servant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging the appointing authority's refusal to renew his contract as a member of the temporary staff.
   In that regard, it is made clear that the contested decision is based exclusively on the policy limiting the services of non-permanent staff in force in DG RTD, which has the effect of excluding from the scope of recruitment all servants with more than six years' seniority in the service of the Commission, seniority which is greater than that of other servants allowed to take part.
   In the applicant's submission, that limitation is contrary to the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants, which states that recruitment is to be directed to securing for the institution the service of persons of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. It is also contrary to the decision of DG ADMIN to authorise the extension of contracts of temporary servants 2(b) (operating budget) or 2(d) (research budget) of short duration until 30 April 2004.
   In support of his claims, the applicant further alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination and also misuse of powers in the present case.


title: Case T-51/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  18 October 2005  — Leite Mateus v Commission (Officials — Career development report — Assessment period 2001/2002)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2005 — Leite Mateus v Commission
   (Case T-51/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - Assessment period 2001/2002)
   (2005/C 330/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the appeal assessor's decision of 14 March 2003, setting out the applicant's career development report for the assessment period 2001/2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004


title: Action brought on 26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff and Cie SA against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case T-177/98)

text:
C 397/32             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     rejection of the applicant's request, registered on
     27 May 1998, to be classified in grade A 4 with
     additional seniority in step in accordance with the           Ð declare unlawful the procedure to be followed in the
     Staff Regulations;                                                event of absence because of sickness, in force in the
                                                                       Council since 18 September 1997;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
                                                                   Ð annul the Council's decision to regard the applicant's
                                                                       absence from 9 to 22 February 1998 as unauthorised
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    and to deduct that absence from her annual leave;
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, by appointing him to grade
A 5, step 5, instead of grade A 4 with additional seniority
in step, the appointing authority failed to take into              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
account his professional experience and specialist skills; it
omitted to undertake any real examination of the
applicant's situation and thereby infringed the second             The applicant submits, first, that the defendant failed to
paragraph of Article 5(1), Article 5(3), the second                comply in the present case with the procedure to be
paragraph of Article 25 and Articles 31 and 32 of the              followed in the event of absence because of sickness or
Staff Regulations, as well as Annex I thereto.                     accident' which it itself introduced and brought to the
                                                                   notice of staff by Communication No 117/97 of
                                                                   18 September 1997.
In addition, the contested decisions in breach of the 1983
decision concerning the criteria applicable to appointment
in grade and classification in step on recruitment as              She further contests the lawfulness of that implementing
amended on 7 February 1986.                                        provision, in that it provides, in the event of a dispute
                                                                   concerning the conclusions of the medical examination,
                                                                   for an arbitration procedure' which disregards the rights
Furthermore, the appointing authority is required by               of defence of the person concerned, since it does not allow
general principles to apply equal treatment to the                 him to designate the doctor of his choice to safeguard his
situations of officials and to take administrative decisions       rights and interests by his presence.
which are based on proper grounds, that is to say, not
vitiated by manifest errors of law or of fact.
                                                                   In the applicant's opinion, where the administration has
                                                                   before it such a dispute, it is obliged to refer the matter to
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of the       an invalidity committee, in accordance with Article 59(3)
protection of legitimate expectations and misuse of                of the Staff Regulations.
powers.
                                                                   The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decisions
                                                                   lack any statement of reasons.
Action brought on 15 October 1998 by Maria Adelina
    Biasutto against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-171/98)                             Action brought on 26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA
                                                                   and Davidoff and Cie SA against the European Parliament
                        (98/C 397/63)                                        and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-177/98)
               (Language of the case: French)                                              (98/C 397/64)
An action against the Commission of the European                                 (Language of the case: German)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
1998 by Maria Adelina Biasutto, residing in Brussels,              An action against the European Parliament and the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,         Council of the European Union was brought before the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg at the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30              26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff and
Rue de Cessange.                                                   Cie SA, of Fribourg and Geneva (Switzerland), represented
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/33
by Dr Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 infringement of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               grade-related aspects of intelectual property rights).
Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   (1) Case T-175/98 Una Film GmbH v. Parliament and Council.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1. annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                       Action brought on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                     Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European
    administrative provisions of the Member States                                              Union
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco                                 (Case T-179/98)
    products (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), at least in so far
    as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising                                  (98/C 397/65)
    in respect of marks which were also used in
    advertising for products other than tobacco products
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    before 30 July 1998;
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2. order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                   Communities on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
                                                                   Guijarro, Eva Hellgren, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, Hans
                                                                   Lund, Daniel Marlier, Maria Augusta Santos, Agneta
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Sederowsky, NoeÂ Youssouroum and Jacqueline Willems,
                                                                   all residing in Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
                                                                   and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
The applicants are companies incorporated under Swiss              Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessante.
law. The first applicant is the owner of the rights to the
Davidoff' trade mark outside the tobacco sector and
awards licences workwide for diversification products              The applicants claim that the Court should:
under the Davidoff' and associated marks. The second
applicant is the owner of the rights to the Davidoff' mark
with respect to tobacco products, including smokers'               Ð annul the Council's decision of 12 January 1998;
articles such as lighters etc.
                                                                   Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
While originally only tobacco products were marketed
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
under the Davidoff' mark, now a variety of diversification
products, generally produced under licence, such as
cosmetics, spirits, leather goods, ties, watches, spectacles       The applicants, who are officials of the Council of the
etc. are also marketed under that mark. In the applicants'         European Union, noted faults, omissions, poor
submission, there is a significant difference between the          workmanship and defects affecting the Justus Lipsius
advertisements for tobacco and those for the other                 Building where they work.
diversification products, and the latter do not give rise to
any associations with Davidoff' tobacco products.
                                                                   After taking numerous informal steps, they made a formal
                                                                   request for:
The applicants submit that they rely on the licences
continuing to be able to advertise the licensed products, in       Ð the appointment of an expert, chosen by agreement
order to be able to ensure the continued existence of the               with the representatives of the staff, and instructed,
Davidoff' diversification products and the jobs associated             after having access to all documents relating to the
therewith.                                                              Justus Lipsius Building, to report all faults and
                                                                        deficiencies affecting the building and jeopardising the
                                                                        safety of staff and visitors, indicate the appropriate
                                                                        remedial work and check the proper performance of
As regards the law, the applicants rely on similar                      that work;
arguments to those which have already been put forward
in Case T-175/98 (1). As additional pleas in law, however,
they also put forward misuse of discretion, breach of other        Ð an undertaking to carry out or have carried out all the
fundamental rights (freedom of the press, right to one's                work specified by the above expert with a view to
name as an emanation of the right of personality, right to              bringing the building into proper state in accordance
equal treatment, freedom to carry on a profession) and                  with the expert's report;


title: Case T-269/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/32

         Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)
   (Case T-269/14)
   2014/C 253/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: City Index Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA (New York, USA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in case R 172/2013-2 that upheld the opposition in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITY INDEX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 4 58  094

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘citi’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 42, the community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘citifinancial’ and ‘citibank’, as well as the community and national word marks ‘CITICAPITAL’, ‘CITIMONEY’, ‘CITIFINANCIAL’, ‘CITI’, ‘CITIBOND’, ‘CITICONNECT’, ‘CITIBANK’ and ‘CITICARD’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the Community trade mark application partially rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-38/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Delplancke and Governatori v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Delplancke and Governatori v Commission
   (Case F-38/05) (1)

   2009/C 193/64

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 37.


               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/2

         Appointment of the First Advocate General
   (2005/C 281/03)
   Pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice has appointed, for a period of one year from 7 October 2005, Ms Stix-Hackl as First Advocate General.


title: Case C-578/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014  — Deltafina SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Immunity from fines Immunity from fines — Obligation to cooperate — Rights of the defence — Limits of judicial review — Right to fair legal process — Hearing of witnesses or of parties — Reasonable time — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Deltafina SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-578/11 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Immunity from fines Immunity from fines - Obligation to cooperate - Rights of the defence - Limits of judicial review - Right to fair legal process - Hearing of witnesses or of parties - Reasonable time - Principle of equal treatment))
   2014/C 282/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Deltafina SpA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-122/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/25

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA
   (Case C-122/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
   2013/C 344/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by F. Baujoin, avocate)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1661/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 February 2009, which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIACTIVE’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-303/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/29

         Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Leopardi Dittajuti v OHIM — Llopart Vilarós (CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI)
   (Case T-303/11)
   2011/C 238/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Piervittorio Francesco Leopardi Dittajuti (Numana, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone, D. Demarinis, and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Llopart Vilarós (Sant Sadurní D'Anoia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1437/2010-2, and consequently require the Office to take the necessary measures to comply with the given judgment; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CONTE LEOPARDI DITTAJUTI’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35, 40, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 6428338

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2073540 of the figurative mark ‘Leopardi’, for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal as inadmissible

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of article 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, of Rules 49(1), 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, applicable to the appeal proceedings pursuant to Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal: (i) incorrectly deemed not to grant a suspension of the proceedings and postponing the deadline as jointly requested by the parties; (ii) incorrectly took into account the parties’ joint request only after the lapse of the deadline of submission of the statement of grounds, thus factually keeping the concerned party from submitting the same within the due date and causing the time-limit to expire; and (iii) infringement of the procedural requirements by the Board of Appeal, as it did not take into account the grounds of appeal, although the relevant statements had been submitted beyond the time-limit, also in breach of the general principle of procedural economy and of preservation of the validity of case-file records.


title: Case T-521/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Sweden v Commission (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Action for failure to act — Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties — Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts — Duty to act)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Sweden v Commission
   (Case T-521/14) (1)

   ((Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Action for failure to act - Specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties - Failure by the Commission to adopt delegated acts - Duty to act))
   (2016/C 048/54)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Sparrman and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, acting as Agent, and M. Johansson, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and N. Lyshøj, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: M. Bulterman and M. Noort, and subsequently by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent); European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and P. Schonard, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and A. Norberg, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt delegated acts concerning the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case F-74/13: Action brought on 25 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/33

         Action brought on 25 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-74/13)
   2013/C 274/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme applying the new general implementing provisions (‘GIP’) relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision to transfer the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service into the pension scheme applicable to staff of the European institutions in accordance with the calculations for the transfer drawn up pursuant to the GIP of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-413/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Shandong Reipu Biochemicals v Council (Dumping — Imports of para-cresol originating in China — Calculation of the constructed normal value — Taking into account of by-products — Obligation of the Commission and the Council to examine)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Shandong Reipu Biochemicals v Council
   (Case T-413/03) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of para-cresol originating in China - Calculation of the constructed normal value - Taking into account of by-products - Obligation of the Commission and the Council to examine)
   (2006/C 224/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Shandong Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd (Shandong, China) (represented by: O. Prost, V. Avgoustidi and E. Berthelot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ricz, Agents) and Degussa Knottingley Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Renard, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 of 11 September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 234, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 of 11 September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating in the People's Republic of China is annulled in so far as it concerns the applicant.

               2.

               The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

               3.

               The Commission and Degussa Knottingley Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-213/11 P(I): Appeal brought on 12 April 2011 by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Others against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/31

         Appeal brought on 12 April 2011 by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Others against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB
   (Case T-213/11 P(I))
   2011/C 152/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Marie-Christel Heger (Luxembourg), Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Nondkeil, France) and Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. J. Wilson, A. Senes and B. Entringer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) and the European Investment Bank

      Forms of order sought by the appellant

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               amend the order the order of 17 March 2011 of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               declare admissible and well founded the application to intervene submitted on 12 January 2011 to the President and other members of the Civil Service Tribunal and declare the applicant a party to the dispute between Eberhard BÖMCKE and the European Investment Bank, in light of the direct interest of the applicant to be a party thereto, pursuant to Articles 109 ff. of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By order of 17 March 2011, the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed as inadmissible, on the grounds that it was out of time, the application to intervene made in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB, by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Ms Heger, Mr Bodson, Mr Kourgias, Mr Sutil and Mr Vanhoudt.
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in the calculation of the time-limit for the submission of the application for leave to appeal, since the time-limit of four weeks provided for in Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the extension on account of distance by a single period of 10 days under Article 100(3) of the Rules should be regarded as separate and independent time-limits, so that the postponement of the deadline, pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Rules, until the end of the first following working day, if the period would otherwise end on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday, must apply to the deadline of four weeks before adding the extension on account of distance and does not apply to the whole time-limit including the extension on account of distance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging wrongful application of the order in Case T-85/97 Horeca-Wallonie v Commission [1997] ECR II-2113, paragraphs 25 and 26, since that order deals with a different situation to that at issue in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the applicants for leave to intervene, since the interpretation given by the President of the Second Chamber was very adverse to the right to appeal.


title: Call for applications — Director of the Information Technology Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15)

text:
               4.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CA 28/1

         CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
   Director of the Information Technology Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15)
   (2010/C 28 A/01)
   The post of Director of the Information Technology Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15) in the Infrastructure Directorate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union will soon become vacant. This post will be filled under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials.
   Duties
   Under the authority of the Director-General of Infrastructure, the Director of Information Technology manages the Information Technology Directorate (DTI) and organises and coordinates its activities.
   He advises the relevant bodies of the Court on information technology and prepares proposals and reports in that connection. He provides budgetary and technical forecasts and planning, taking account of the priorities set by the institution. He manages four administrative units with approximately 70 officials and supervises the services provided by external firms selected for work in the information technology field. He ensures that computer systems comply with the rules and regulations in force.
   The DTI is responsible for all information technology services at the Court of Justice. This also includes telecommunication and multimedia services.
   Qualifications required

               —

               Completed university education attested by a diploma,

               —

               proven ability in the running and management of a large administrative department,

               —

               very good knowledge and experience of strategic issues in computing. Experience in the judicial area would be an additional asset,

               —

               demonstrated experience in the management of computing projects,

               —

               ability and experience demonstrated in strategic forecasting and planning and the reporting connected with them,

               —

               very good knowledge and experience of budget management and large tendering procedures,

               —

               good knowledge of the Financial Regulation, its detailed rules of application and the regulatory mechanisms applicable to the Community institutions in sectors falling within the scope of the directorate,

               —

               good knowledge of French and English.

         Submission of applications
   Applications for this post are to be sent by email  to DIR-DTI-CURIA@curia.europa.eu and must be received by the Court of Justice by 6 p.m. on 26 February 2010, at the latest. Applications must be accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae and any other relevant documents.


title: Case T-206/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/19

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-206/06)
   (2006/C 261/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, lawyer, and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               principally, annul Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006;

               —

               in the alternative, amend Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in so far as it imposes jointly and severally on Arkema SA, Altuglas International SA and Altumax Europe SAS a fine of EUR 219.13125 million, for which Total SA and Elf Aquitaine are held jointly and severally liable for EUR 140.4 million and EUR 181.35 million respectively, and reduce the amount of the fine in question to an appropriate level;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, by which the Commission found that the undertakings to which the decision was addressed, which included the applicants, infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates sector consisting in discussions on prices, the conclusion, implementation and monitoring of price agreements, exchanges of commercially important information and confidential information on markets and/or undertakings as well as the participation in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement. In the alternative, they seek the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on their subsidiary for which they are held jointly and severally liable.
   The main claim is based on nine pleas for annulment.
   The first plea alleges an infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted following an administrative procedure during which they could not mount a useful defence to the extent that the Commission did not discharge its burden of proof, thus ignoring the principle of equality of arms.
   In the second plea, they submit that the contested decision ignored the obligation to state reasons, which is made even greater, according to the applicants, by the alleged novelty of the position adopted by the Commission. They point out that the contested decision, in so far as it censures them for the infringement at issue committed by their subsidiary, bases the imputation of responsibility solely on the assumption of a determining influence of the applicants on their subsidiary on the ground that they hold virtually all of the subsidiary's share capital, without any consideration of facts that might support or refute this assumption. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested decision contains a number of contradictions that result from confusion between the concept of an undertaking/economic entity responsible for an infringement and the concept of a legal entity to which a decision is addressed. In the context of this plea, the applicants also complain that the Commission failed to respond sufficiently to their arguments regarding the independence of their subsidiary.
   By the third plea, the applicants point out that in its decision the Commission acted in breach of the unitary nature of the concept of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1).
   In the fourth plea, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed the rules governing whether breaches committed by a subsidiary can be imputed to its parent company. The applicants submit that the Commission disregarded the limits of its power as regards determining imputability by adopting an interpretation of the case-law relating to imputability which was incorrect and went against its decision-making practice. According to the applicants, the Commission also acted in breach of the principle of the independence of legal persons.
   The fifth plea alleges infringement of the essential principles recognised by all the Member States and which form an integral part of the Community legal order such as the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of liability for one's own acts, the principle of the individual nature of penalties and the principle of legality.
   In the sixth plea, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration.
   The seventh plea alleges infringement by the Commission of the principle of legal certainty on the part of the applicants.
   By the eighth plea, the applicants contend that the contested decision constitutes a misuse of powers in that it holds them liable for the cartel at issue and orders them severally with their subsidiary to pay the fine.
   In their ninth plea, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed certain fundamental principles that govern the calculation of fines such as the principle of equal treatment in so far as it did not apply a reduction of 25 % to the starting amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, whereas it did apply it to another undertaking to which the contested decision was addressed because of a lack of knowledge of the overall infringement. The applicants also allege infringement of the fundamental principles of the presumption of innocence and legal certainty which result, according to them, from a disregard for the limits placed on the Commission's power regarding the taking into account of deterrent effect.
   In the alternative, the applicants consider that the fine imposed on their subsidiary, and for which they are held jointly and severally liable, should be reduced to a fair level. They seek to obtain a reduction of 25 % in the starting amount of the fine because of their lack of knowledge of the infringement and also to rely on mitigating circumstances in that they were ordered to pay large fines almost simultaneously in two similar cases.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)