title: Appeal brought on 24 August 1995 by Guérin Automobiles against the judgment delivered on 27 June 1995 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-186/94 between Guérin Automobiles and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-282/95 P)

text:
14 . 10 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — in the alternative, should the Court of First Instance
                                                                          interpret the Commission's letters of 21 January 1993
The Italian Republic has not taken any steps as yet — that is             and 4 February 1994 as expressing and repeating a
to say, two years after the adoption of Decision 93/496/EEC               decision not to pursue Mr Guérin's complaint, annul the
— to comply with the Commission's repeated calls to                       decision contained in those letters pursuant to
execute that Decision . It has merely apprised the                        Article 173 of the Treaty,
Commission of the legal and practical difficulties involved in
the implementation of the Decision and has failed to take             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
any steps to recover the aid or to make any proposal to the
Commission regarding detailed alternative arrangements
for implementing the Decision, under which the alleged                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
difficulties would be overcome . In the light of those
considerations, it must be concluded that the Italian                 There were defects in the procedure which are detrimental
Republic cannot plead impossibility of performance in                 to the appellant's interests in so far as the Court of First
relation to the decision in question.                                 Instance failed entirely:
(>) OJ No L 233 , 16 . 9 . 1993 , p . 10 .                            — to analyse the exchange of letters between June and
                                                                          August 1994 enabling it to rule on the facts and to
                                                                          address the pleas and submissions of the appellant
                                                                          relating thereto,
                                                                      — to draw the consequences from the Commission's
                                                                          refusal to produce evidence to justify the procedure
                                                                          resorted to by the Commission to more or less abstain
Appeal brought on 24 August 1995 by Guérin Automobiles                    from acting ( holding letter ).
against the judgment delivered on 27 June 1995 by the
Third Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                    The Court of First Instance made an error of law in
T-l 86/94 between Guérin Automobiles and Commission of                determining the nature of the letter of 13 June 1994 as an
                 the European Communities                             act, an error aggravated by the failure to compare it with the
                       Case C-282/95 P                                subsequent correspondence from Guérin Automobiles,
                                                                      which was not considered at all . The Court was obliged to
                           ( 95/C 268/37 )                            accept the Commission's own description of it — a holding
                                                                      letter — which, according to the settled case-law of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered by the Third                 Court of Justice relating to acts, means that it cannot be a
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                'definition of position' terminating the failure to act.
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-l 86/94
between Guérin Automobiles and Commission of the                      The Court of First Instance could not have based its decision
European Communities was brought before the Court of                  on the information gathered by the Commission and relied
Justice of the European Communities on 24 August 1995 by              upon by the latter to justify its reply when there was no trace
Guérin Automobiles , represented by Jean-Claude                       of that information in the case-file .
Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bars , with an address for
service at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue Béatrix de
Bourbon .                                                             The Court of First Instance could not fail to recognize the
                                                                      breach of the principle audi et alteram partem and admit
                                                                      that the Commission could have referred in its letter of
The appellant claims that the Court should :                          13 June 1994 to an alleged procedure, alleged to be similar,
                                                                      the alleged existence of which justified the failure to deal
— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third            with the Guérin Automobiles case and concerning which
     Chamber, extended composition ) of the European                  Commission staff have refused to produce any evidence
     Communities of 27 June 1 995 in Case T-l 86/94 Guérin            whatsoever in court .
    Automobiles v . Commission of the European
     Communities , save as regards costs,
                                                                      The Court of First Instance could not, without breaching the
                                                                      general principle of the right of access to the courts, state
and, ruling on the substance of the action,                           that the letter of 13 June 1994 had the effect in this instance
                                                                      of depriving the applicant of any legal remedy.
having regard to the arguments submitted at first
instance ,
                                                                      Since it was impossible to contest the principle of the right of
— declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty, that the            access to the courts, the Court of First Instance wrongly held
     Commission has failed to take a decision with regard to          that the appellant was henceforth entitled to obtain a
     the complainant, whereas the latter had requested it in          definitive Commission decision which was capable of ' being
     due time to do so ,                                              the subject-matter of an action for annulment', when there is
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/18              iENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
nothing to prevent the Commission from persisting in its                 ( a ) Is Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ( ] ) to be
inaction, perpetuating the failure to act, or at least to give                  interpreted ( given that it must comply with Article 130r
deliberately ambiguous replies.                                                 of the Treaty ) as permitting the free use of halons ( that
                                                                                is, products which have a serious impact on the
The appellant will rely on all the arguments put forward                        environment ), subject only to limitations on their
before the Court of First Instance in the application and in                    production or on their use by producers, and not on
the reply .                                                                     their importation, but as prohibiting absolutely the use
                                                                                ( and hence both the production and the importation ) of
                                                                                HCFCs (that is, of products which have little impact on
                                                                                the environment )        for purposes not stated in
                                                                                Article 5 ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                ( b) Is not the provision in point in Regulation (EC )
Baden-Wiirttemberg by order of that court of 21 August                          No 3093/94 in substance a measure having equivalent
1995 in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v. Finanzamt                              effect to a quantitative restriction in so far as, in the
                            Donaueschingen                                      absence of any of the grounds of justification under
                           ( Case C-283/95 )                                    Article 36 of the Treaty, it restricts the free movement
                                                                                of a product throughout the Community ?
                              ( 95/C 268/38 )
                                                                         (c ) Does not the conduct of the Community and of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          institutions, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                           and particularly at the stages subsequent to its
Baden-Wiirttemberg ( Finance Court of the Land                                  adoption, constitute action of a public-law nature
Baden-Wiirttemberg) of 21 August 1 995 , which was                              designed to reinforce the dominant position of certain
received at the Court Registry on 25 August 1995 , for a                        operators, such action constituting in itself an instance
preliminary ruling in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v.                          of serious abuse for the purposes of Article 86 of the
Finanzamt Donaueschingen on the following questions :                           Treaty ?
1 . Is Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive ( 1 ) to be interpreted    ( d ) May legislation for the protection of the environment
      as meaning that services which the organizer of unlawful                  — and particularly Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 —
      and punishable games of chance provides to the players                    derogate ( be interpreted as derogating ) from the
      are not taxable ?                                                         Community rules on competition ( by thus permitting
                                                                                or facilitating restrictive agreements or the abuse of a
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative :                           dominant position ) or are the prohibitions under those
                                                                                rules unconditional and not subject to derogation,
      Is Article 11 A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive to be                  precluding derogations or restrictions, whether
      interpreted as meaning that, in the case of unlawful                      introduced by the Community or by individual
      gaming in the form of roulette, the basis of assessment                   Member States ?
      for the operator's services to the players is the amount
      retained by the operator during a tax period ?                     (') OJ No L 333 , 22. 12 . 1994, p. 1 .
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative :
      How is the basis of assessment to be determined in cases
      described under Questions 1 and 2 ?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
( ] ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( OJ             Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that court of
      No L 145 , p . 1 ).                                                   11 August 1995 in the case of Suat Kol v. Land Berlin
                                                                                ( Case C-285/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/40 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del                  European Communities by order of the Eighth Chamber of
Giudice di Pace, Genoa, by order of that court of 8 August              the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ( Higher Administrative
     1995 in the case of Safety Hi-Tech Sri v. S> &c T. Sri              Court, Berlin ) of 1 1 August 1995 , which was received at the
                             Case C-284/95 )                             Court Registry on 28 August 1 995, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Suat Kol v . Land Berlin on the following
                             ( 95/C 268/39 )                             questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . Are periods of employment spent in a Member State by a
European Communities by an order of the Ufficio del                            Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit
Giudice di Pace ( Magistrate's Office ), Genoa , of 8 August                   obtained by wilful and criminal deceit to be recognized
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             as legal employment within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
28 August 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safety               of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of
Hi-Tech Sri v. S. & T. Sri on the following questions :                        Association ?


title: Case C-43/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2014  — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2011/82/EU — Cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences — Choice of legal basis — Article 87(2)(a) TFEU — Article 91 TFEU — Maintenance of the effects of the directive in case of annulment)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-43/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Directive 2011/82/EU - Cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences - Choice of legal basis - Article 87(2)(a) TFEU - Article 91 TFEU - Maintenance of the effects of the directive in case of annulment))
   2014/C 202/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler and A. Troupiotis and by K. Zejdová, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, T. Materne, acting as Agents, and by S. Rodrigues and F. Libert, avocats, Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and by N. Travers, Barrister-at-Law), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and by K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Stege, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by J. Maurici and J. Holmes, Barristers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences (OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Replacement of the proposed legal basis in the field of common transport policy by another, in the field of police cooperation — Objectives of improving road safety — Maintaining the effects of the directive in the event of annulment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Directive 2011/82 until the entry into force within a reasonable period of time — which may not exceed 12 months as from the date of delivery of the present judgment — of a new directive based on the correct legal basis, that is to say, Article 91(1)(c) TFEU;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, Ireland, Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-579/12: Action brought on 30 December 2012 — Commission v Siemens

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Action brought on 30 December 2012 — Commission v Siemens
   (Case T-579/12)
   2013/C 63/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order Siemens AG to pay the applicant EUR 671 234 plus interest in the amount of 5 % above the base interest rate within the meaning of Paragraph 247 of the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code) as from the time when the action was brought;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that under the contract concluded with the defendant it is entitled to demand compensation for the additional costs arising out of the delay in taking back the materials which have been put at its disposal. Such compensation also has to be paid under the German law applicable to the contract, more precisely under Paragraph 304 and also Paragraphs 280 and 286 of the BGB.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-326/01: Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/11

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 5 February 2004
   in Case C-326/01: Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctive character - Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications - Word marks ‘Universaltelefonbuch’ and ‘Universalkommunikationsverzeichnis’)
   (2004/C 94/20)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-326/01 P: Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH (Lawyer: H.G. Zeiner), with an address for service in Luxembourg — Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch v OHIM (Universaltelefonbuch and Universalkommunikationsverzeichnis) [2001] ECR II-1705, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 October 1999 refusing to register the words ‘Universaltelefonbuch’ and ‘Universalkommunikationsverzeichnis’ as Community trade marks (Cases R 351/1999-3 and R 352/1999-3), seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agents: E. Joly and S. Bonne) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Judge-Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2001 C 317.


title: Case T-267/10: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Land Wien v Commission (Nuclear power — Application initiating proceedings — Action for annulment — Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks of a nuclear power plant — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/22

         Order of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Land Wien v Commission
   (Case T-267/10) (1)

   (Nuclear power - Application initiating proceedings - Action for annulment - Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks of a nuclear power plant - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Land Wien (Austria) (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, in essence, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 March 2010 not to take any further action in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia and, secondly, an action in respect of failure to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to the documents requested relevant to that project, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-407/09: Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/32

         Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission
   (Case T-407/09)
   2009/C 312/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (Neubrandenburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and J. Dammann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision D/53320 of 29 July 2009;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC, in infringement of its duties under Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision D/53320 of 29 July 2009 concerning Case CP 141/2007 — Germany, Potential State aid granted in connection with the privatisation of apartments in Neubrandenburg. In that decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the contracts against which the applicant had brought a complaint, which the applicant had entered into in connection with the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg, did not contain State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   In the alternative, the applicant has applied for a declaration that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
   In support of its action for annulment, the applicant submits four pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the contested decision has to be annulled because the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC even though, during the preliminary examination following the applicant’s complaint, the Commission encountered serious difficulties as regards the assessment of the compatibility of the contested measure with the common market. Second, by finding that the contested contracts did not contain State aid, the Commission infringed Article 87(1) EC. Third, the Commission misused its powers. Fourth, the applicant claims that, in breach of Article 253 EC, the contested decision is inadequately reasoned.
   In support of its alternative action for failure to act, the applicant submits three pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims in this respect that, although the applicant formally called on the Commission to act in accordance with Article 232(2) EC, the Commission failed to act, and that even though, following difficulties with the assessment of the contested contracts encountered during the preliminary examination, the Commission was under an obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC. Second, the applicant claims that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission also infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) since, during the preliminary phase, the Commission had reason to doubt the compatibility of the contested contracts with the common market. Third, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the allocation of jurisdiction among the Commission and national courts in the area of State aid control laid down in Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, because, pending the outcome of parallel proceedings between the applicant and the aid beneficiary before national courts, the Commission conducted the examination in a manner that was merely dilatory.

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


title: Case T-121/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council
   (Case T-121/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 392/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents), and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers).

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger against the European Parliament (Case T-108/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /21
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                against the European Parliament
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                       ( Case T-108/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /44 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996                                       (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger,
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   residing at Heffingen, Luxembourg, represented by Jean
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the decision of 3 September 1996 assigning him
Case T-16/97 0 ).                                                            non-active status as from the evening of 31 January
                                                                             1996 , and
O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets                        The applicant has already contested the appointing
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   authority's decision of 1 December 1995 , notified by letter
                         ( Case T-107/97 )                              of 27 December 1995 , by which he was assigned non
                                                                        active status backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted
                           ( 97/C 181 /43 )                             the allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff
                                                                        Regulations ( Case T-176/96 (')).
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        In the present case, the applicant is challenging the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       decision of the President of the European Parliament of
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997                   3 September 1996, that the moment on which the decision
by Suzanne Smets, residing in Brussels, represented by                  to assign him non-active status is to take effect as from
Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for                the evening of 31 January 1996 and that the allowance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,                  provided for in Annex IV to the Staff Regulations is to be
21 Rue de Nassau .                                                      granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant submits that, by not communicating the
                                                                        contested decision to him until seven months after it came
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting her request                 into force, the Parliament has failed to comply with its
     to be regraded,                                                    obligation under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations to
                                                                        communicate at once any decision adversely affecting an
— annul the Commission's                decision   rejecting  her       official . He further argues that such decision cannot
     administrative complaint,                                          produce any retroactive effect without infringing the
                                                                        principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        In addition, he claims, the decision to assign him non
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     active status was adopted in infringement of Article 41 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard for
                                                                        an official 's interests, and took no account of his personal
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  interests .
Case T- 16/97 ( M.
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        C ) OJ No C 388 , 21 . 12 . 1996 , p . 10 et seq.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Sven Åke Henriksson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-197/95)

text:
No C 351 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred within               Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares
    the framework of the present application, including               Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henriksson against the
    those incurred by the applicants .                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-197/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /28 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, seven public companies established under              An action against the Commission of the European
the laws of Japan, manufacturers of, inter alia, certain types        Communities was brought before the Court of First
of electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs, challenge the             Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
decision of the Commission to initiate an interim review of           by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs                 Henriksson, represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr
originating in Japan, in so far as it concerns the applicants '       Michael Schiitte and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff with an
undertakings accepted by Commission Regulation ( EEC )                address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr
No 165/90 , imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on               Axel Bonn, Avenue Guillaume 62 .
imports of this kind of products .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
By Regulation ( EEC ) No 2112/90, the Council imposed a               — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 in so far as that
definitive anti-dumping duty of 60 % on imports of DRAMs                  Regulation refuses to fix, for the 1994/95 marketing
originating in Japan . However, DRAMs produced and                        year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable
exported to the Community by companies which offered the                  to the minimum sugar-beet prices also with regard to
aforementioned undertakings were exempted from this                       Sweden, for the period from 1 January to 30 June
definitive duty . The contested decision has been taken                   1 995 ,
following a request for a review, under Articles 14 and 15 of
                                                                      — order the Commission to bear the costs of these
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , by the European
Electronic Component Manufacturers' Association.                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants submit that the decision to initiate the
disputed review constitutes an act capable of review under            The applicants request the annulment of Commission
Article 173 of the EEC Treaty . As provided for in                    Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 , concerning the fixing of the
Article 15 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , the decision      specific agricultural conversion rate relating to the sugar
to initiate an expiry review has the effect of maintaining in         market for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 in so far as it
force the anti-dumping measure concerned which would                  explicitly denies the determination of a specific agricultural
otherwise have expired after five years . The legal effect of         conversion rate for Swedish kronor, which would be
the decision to initiate the disputed review is, therefore, the       applicable to Sweden for the part of the sugar marketing
continued application of an anti-dumping measure on the               year 1994/95 from the date of accession to 30 Tune
                                                                      1995 .
applicants .
                                                                      The applicants state that the failure by the Commission to
                                                                      determine such a specific agricultural conversion rate has
The applicants further submit that the contested decision is          not been unintentional . Rather, the Regulation clearly
manifestly unlawful in so far as it concerns anti-dumping             reasons that the Commission ( incorrectly ) considers that no
measures which are clearly incapable of being the subject of          specific agricultural conversion rate need be determined
a valid interim review proceeding because they expired prior          with regard to the three new Member States, i.e. Finland,
to the initiation of the interim review concerned . As a              Sweden and Austria .
question of law, Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EC )
No 3283/94 provides for a maximum five-year period of                 The applicants maintain that the failure to determine a
validity for all anti-dumping measures unless it is                   specific agricultural conversion rate for Swedish kronor is
determined in an expiry review initiated prior to the expiry          based upon a misconception of the limited scope of the
of the five-year period and that the expiry would be likely to        transitional measures applicable to the sugar market in
lead to a continuation of dumping and injury . Accordingly,           Sweden during the 1994/95 sugar marketing year, infringes
the decision to initiate the disputed review infringes an             Article 1 ( 3 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1713/93
essential procedural requirement in so far as it concerns             and directly affects their rights in that it deprives them,
measures which had already expired .                                  without any legal basis, of their well-founded rights and
                                                                      expectations to participate in one of the fundamental
                                                                      elements of the sugar market regulation: the price
                                                                      Regulation.


title: Case T-332/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — ESN v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) — Rejection of a tender — Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency — Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — ESN v Commission
   (Case T-332/03) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) - Rejection of a tender - Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications)
   (2008/C 107/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Service Network (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Steichen and P.-E Partsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission's call for tenders ENTR/02/55 — CORDIS Lot 1 for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders European Service Network (ESN) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-207/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 30 April 2010 — Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. and Merck Sharp & Dohme

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 30 April 2010 — Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. and Merck Sharp & Dohme
   (Case C-207/10)
   2010/C 179/38
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S

      Defendants: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck Sharp & Dohme BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the associated case-law, in particular the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche v Centrafarm
                   (2) and 1/81 Pfizer v Eurim-Pharm
                   (3) and Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova
                   (4), to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may rely on these provisions in order to prevent a parallel importer’s marketing company, which is the holder of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in a Member State, from selling that product with an indication that the product is repackaged by the marketing company, although the marketing company has the physical repackaging carried out by another company, the repackaging company, to which the marketing company gives instructions for the purchasing and repackaging of the product, for the detailed design of the product’s packaging and for other arrangements in relation to the product, and which holds the repackaging authorisation and reaffixes the trade mark on the new package in the course of repackaging?

               2.

               Is it of significance in answering Question (i) that an assumption might be made that the consumer or end-user is not misled with regard to the origin of the product and will not be led to believe that the trade mark proprietor is responsible for the repackaging through the indication by the parallel importer of the manufacturer’s name on the packaging along with the indication as described of the undertaking responsible for the repackaging?

               3.

               Is it only the risk that the consumer or end-user might be misled into assuming that the trade mark proprietor is responsible for the repackaging which is of significance in answering Question (i), or are other considerations regarding the trade mark proprietor also relevant, for example (a) that the entity which in fact undertakes the purchasing and repackaging and reaffixes the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark on the product’s packaging thereby potentially infringes independently the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark rights, and that that may be due to factors for which the entity that physically carried out the repackaging is responsible that (b) the repackaging affects the original condition of the product or that (c) the presentation of the repackaged product is of such a kind that it may be assumed to harm the trade mark or its proprietor’s reputation?

               4.

               If, in answering Question (iii), the Court finds that it is also relevant to take account of the fact that the repackaging company potentially infringes independently the trade mark rights of the trade mark proprietor, the Court is asked to indicate whether it is of significance to this answer that the marketing company and repackaging company of the parallel importer are jointly and severally liable under national law for the infringement of the trade mark proprietor’s trade mark rights?

               5.

               Is it of significance in answering Question (i) that the parallel importer which holds the marketing authorisation and has indicated itself as being responsible for repackaging, at the time of the notification of the trade mark proprietor prior to the intended sale of the repackaged medicinal product, belongs to the same group as the company which undertook the repackaging (sister company)?

               6.

               Is it of significance in answering Question (i) that the repackaging company is indicated as the manufacturer in the package leaflet?

      (1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

      (2)  [1978] ECR 1139.

      (3)  [1981] ECR 2913.

      (4)  [1996] ECR I-3457.


title: Case T-419/13: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2014  — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to two Spanish competition proceedings — Implied refusal of access — Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/22

         Order of the General Court of 6 May 2014 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission
   (Case T-419/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to two Spanish competition proceedings - Implied refusal of access - Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 202/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, A. Valiente Martin and C. Maldonado Márquez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to correspondence exchanged between the Commission and the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC, Spanish national competition authority) with regard to two national proceedings initiated by the CNC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those of Unión de Almacenistas of Hierros de España.

               4.

               The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case T-566/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 — Excalibur City v EUIPO — Ferrero (MERLIN’S KINDERWELT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark MERLIN’S KINDERWELT — Earlier national word mark KINDER — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 — Excalibur City v EUIPO — Ferrero (MERLIN’S KINDERWELT)
   (Case T-566/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark MERLIN’S KINDERWELT - Earlier national word mark KINDER - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 402/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Excalibur City s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Engin-Deniz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Simandlova and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: L. Ghedina and F. Jacobacci, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1617/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero and Excalibur City.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Alters the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 1617/2014-1) in such a way as to hold that the appeal brought by Excalibur City s.r.o. before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition must be rejected;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Excalibur City;

               3.

               Orders Ferrero SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case F-79/09: Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Schlienger v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/66

         Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Schlienger v Commission
   (Case F-79/09)
   2009/C 282/126
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Schlienger (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for (i) annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2008, received on 16 January 2009, rejecting the applicants’ request for recognition of the ailment suffered by him as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and (ii) so far as necessary annulment of the decision of 11 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.
   Application for EUR 12 000 in damages as compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2008, received on 16 January 2009, rejecting the applicants’ request for recognition of the ailment suffered by him as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision of 11 June 2009 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 12 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-517/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2010 — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2010 — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-517/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Luisa Gómez Cueto

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 applicable to staff of the public authorities who, by their administrative-law relationship with those authorities, have the status of civil servants?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a national law which does not provide for a rule implementing Directive 1999/70/EC to have retroactive effect from the date by which the Directive was to be transposed into domestic law contrary to Community law?

      (1)  concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.43).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret i København and from the Højesteret): Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v. Paranova A/S (Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - Article 36 of the EC Treaty - Repackaging of trade-marked products)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   No 2163/92 of 30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                               amount provided for by Regulations ( EEC ) No 3429/80,
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 796/81 , and ( EEC ) No 1755/81 adopting
                          of 4 July 1996                               protective measures applicable to imports of preserved
in Case C-295/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Hüpeden & Co. KG v.                  composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas ( 1 )                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray, Judges;
(Preserved cultivated mushrooms — Measures of market                   F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                            management)                                Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 July
                                                                       1996 , in which it ruled :
                           ( 96/C 336/ 13 )
                                                                       Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2163/92 of
                (Language of the case: German)                         30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional amount
                                                                       provided for by Regulations (EEC) No 3429/80, (EEC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           No 796/81 , and (EEC) No 1755/81 adopting protective
          published in the European Court Reports)                     measures applicable to imports of preserved cultivated
                                                                       mushrooms is invalid as regards the level of the additional
In Case C-295/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  amount set.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                 í 1 ) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 1992 , p . 16 .
Hüpeden & Co . KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1796/81 of
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of
preserved cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                                     of 11 July 1996
on 4 July 1996 , in which it ruled :                                   in Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93
                                                                       (references for a preliminary ruling from the S0- og
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1796/81 of               Handelsret i Kobenhavn and from the Højesteret ):
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of                           Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v. Paranova A/S ( 1 )
preserved cultivated mushrooms is invalid as regards the               (Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the
level of the additional amount set.                                    Member States relating to trade marks — Article 36 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty — Repackaging of trade-marked products)
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 1981 , p . 1 .                                                               ( 96/C 336/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93 :
                          of 4 July 1996                               references to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC
in Case C-296/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  Treaty by the So- og Handelsret i Kobenhavn ( Maritime and
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Bernhard Pietsch v.                  Commercial Court of Copenhagen ) ( in Cases C-427/93 and
            Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof ( 1 )                      C-429/93 ) and the Højesteret ( Supreme Court ) ( in Case
        (Preserved mushrooms — Protective measures)                    C-436/93 ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before those courts between Bristol-Myers Squibb
                           ( 96/C 336/14 )
                                                                       and Paranova A/S ( C-427/93 ), and between C. H.
                                                                       Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer
                (Language of the case: German)                         Ingelheim A/S and Paranova A/S ( C-429/93 ), and between
                                                                       Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer Danmark A/S and Paranova
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           A/S ( C-436/93 ), on the interpretation of Article 7 of the first
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive ( 89/104/EEC ) of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                       approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
In Case C-296/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  marks ( 2 ), and of Article 36 of the EC Treaty, the Court,
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht                    composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
( Finance Court ) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
Bernhard Pietsch and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof                   Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,
— on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                     Advocate-General, F. G. Jacobs, for the Registrar : H. von
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/8           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, L. Hewlett, Administrator, has                    the product inside the packaging is not indirectly
given a judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it rules :                          affected, for example, by the fact that the external or
                                                                              inner packaging of the repackaged product or new
                                                                              user instructions or information omits certain
1 . The reliance by a trade mark owner on his rights as                       important information or gives inaccurate
    owner in order to prevent an importer from marketing a                    information, or the fact that an extra article inserted
    product which was put on the market in another                            in the packaging by the importer and designed for
    Member State by the owner or with his consent where                       the ingestion and dosage of the product does not
    that importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed                    comply with the method of use and the doses
    the trade mark without the owner 's authorization, is to                  envisaged by the manufacturer,
    be assessed on the basis of the combined provisions of
    national trade mark law and Article 7 of the first                     — the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the
    Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988                        product and the name of the manufacturer in print
    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating                     such that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a
    to trade marks, interpreted in the light of Article 36 of                 normal degree of attentiveness, would be in a
    the EC Treaty.                                                            position to understand; similarly, the origin of an
                                                                              extra article from a source other than the trade-mark
2 . Save in the circumstances defined in Article 7 (2),                       owner must be indicated in such a way as to dispel
                                                                              any impression that the trade-mark owner is
    Article 7 (1 ) of Directive 89/104/EEC precludes the
    owner of a trade mark from relying on his rights as                       responsible for it; however, it is not necessary to
    owner to prevent an importer from marketing a product                     indicate that the repackaging was carried out
    which was put on the market in another Member State                       without the authorization of the trade-mark
                                                                              owner,
    by the owner or with his consent, even if that importer
    repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark to
    it without the owner 's authorization .                                — the presentation of the repackaged product is not
                                                                              such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the
                                                                              trade mark and of its owner; thus, the packaging
3 . Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/EEC must be                             must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy;
    interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may                      and
    legitimately oppose the further marketing of a
    pharmaceutical product where the importer has                          — the importer gives notice to the trade-mark owner
    repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark                        before the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on
    unless :                                                                  demand, supplies him with a specimen of the
                                                                               repackaged product.
    — its is established that reliance on trade mark rights by
        the owner in order to oppose the marketing of                (>) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
        repackaged particulars under that trade mark would           ( 2 ) OJ No L 40, 1989 , p . 1 .
        contribute to the artificial partitioning of the
        markets between Member States; such is the case, in
        particular, where the owner has put an identical
        pharmaceutical product on the market in several
        Member States in various forms of packaging, and
        the repackaging carried out by the importer is                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        necessary in order to market the product in the                                       of 11 July 1996
        Member State of importation, and is carried out in
        such conditions that the original condition of the           in Case C-39/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
        product cannot be affected by it; that condition does        Tribunal de Commerce, Paris ): Syndicat fran^ais de
        not, however, imply that it must be established that         l'Express International ( SFEI ) and Others v. La Poste and
        the trade mark owner deliberately sought to                                                Others ( 1 )
        partition the markets between Member States,                  (State aid —Jurisdiction ofnational courts when the matter
                                                                     is also pending before the Commission — Definition ofState
    — it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the             aid — Consequences ofinfringement of the last sentence of
        original condition of the product inside the                                 Article 93 (3) of the EC Treaty)
        packaging; such is the case, in particular, where the                                  ( 96/C 336/16 )
        importer has merely carried out operations involving
         no risk of the product being affected, such as, for                          (Language of the case: French)
        example, the removal of blister packs, flasks, phials,
        ampoules or inhalers from their original external
        packaging and their replacement in new external               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        packaging, the fixing of self-stick labels on the inner                 published in the European Court Reports)
        packaging of the product, the addition to the
        packaging of new user instructions or information,            In Case C-39/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
         or the insertion of an extra article; it is for the          Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce,
         national court to verify that the original condition of      Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 December 1999 in Case C-234/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Leeds Industrial Tribunal): G.C. Allen and Others v Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Transfer within a group of companies)

text:
C 47/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 December 1999
                      of 25 November 1999
                                                                           in Case C-234/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Leeds Industrial Tribunal): G.C. Allen and Others v
in Case C-212/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                   Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd (1)
                          ties v Ireland (1)
                                                                           (Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
                                                                            of undertakings — Transfer within a group of companies)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive
                             93/83/EEC)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/17)
                           (2000/C 47/16)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case C-234/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Leeds Industrial
                                                                           Tribunal, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between G.C. Allen and
In Case C-212/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Others and Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd — on the
(Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — appli-                 interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the              1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative                 relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                      of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of                      (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to                   of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retrans-          de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and
mission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) and/or by failing to inform the             P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                  judgment on 2 December 1999, in which it has ruled:
of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón,
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                           1. Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
given a judgment on 25 November 1999, in which it:
                                                                                safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
                                                                                undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses can apply to a
                                                                                transfer between two companies in the same group which have
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                                the same ownership, management and premises and which are
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                engaged in the same works.
    comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September
    1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright
    and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting   2. Directive 77/187 applies to a situation in which a company
    and cable retransmission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations      belonging to a group decides to subcontract to another company
    under that directive;                                                       in the same group contracts for driveage work in mines in so far
                                                                                as the transaction involves the transfer of an economic entity
                                                                                between the two companies. The term ‘economic entity’ refers to
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                             an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the
                                                                                exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-620/15: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Orthema Service v EUIPO (Gehen wie auf Wolken) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Gehen wie auf Wolken — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/26

      Order of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Orthema Service v EUIPO (Gehen wie auf Wolken)
      (Case T-620/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Gehen wie auf Wolken - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2016/C 454/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 404/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Gehen wie auf Wolken as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Orthema Service GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case T-169/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Hennig Arzneimittel (Cellutrim) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Cellutrim — Earlier national word mark Cellidrin — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Hennig Arzneimittel (Cellutrim)
   (Case T-169/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Cellutrim - Earlier national word mark Cellidrin - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2009/C 44/81)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Hennig Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG (Flörsheim, Germany) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1123/2006-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between, initially, Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and, subsequently, Hennig Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Longevity Health Products, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-127/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2011 — Aldegonda van den Booren v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2011 — Aldegonda van den Booren v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
   (Case C-127/11)
   2011/C 152/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aldegonda van den Booren

      Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 52(1) of the koninklijk besluit van 21 december 1967 tot vaststelling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en overlevingspensioen voor werknemers (Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 on the general regulation of the retirement and survivor’s pension scheme for employed workers), under which a survivor’s pension is reduced as a result of the increase in an old-age pension awarded under the Wet van 31 mei 1956 inzake een algemene ouderdomsverzekering (Law of 31 May 1956 on general old-age pensions) pursuant to the implementation of the equal treatment of men and women by the Law of 28 March 1985, compatible with Community law, in particular with Article 46a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community;

               2.

               Is Article 52(1) of the koninklijk besluit van 21 december 1967 tot vaststelling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en overlevingspensioen voor werknemers (Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 on the general regulation of the retirement and survivor’s pension scheme for employed workers) compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10 and 39 to 42 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Community, if that provision is interpreted in such a way that an old-age pension awarded under the Wet van 31 mei 1956 inzake een algemene ouderdomsverzekering (Law of 31 May 1956 on general old-age pensions) is to be included under the retirement pensions or equivalent benefits referred to in that provision, and in case of incompatibility, should Article 52(1) of the koninklijk besluit van 21 december 1967 then be disapplied?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II), p. 416


title: Case C-303/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 — Training and certification — Obligation to provide notification — Penalties — Regulations (EC) No 303/2008, (EC) No 304/2008, (EC) No 305/2008, (EC) No 306/2008, (EC) No 307/2008 and (EC) No 308/2008)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-303/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 - Training and certification - Obligation to provide notification - Penalties - Regulations (EC) No 303/2008, (EC) No 304/2008, (EC) No 305/2008, (EC) No 306/2008, (EC) No 307/2008 and (EC) No 308/2008))
   (2015/C 279/19)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to notify the European Commission of the required information concerning the certification bodies for personnel and companies and of the titles of certificates for personnel and companies involved in activities relating to specific fluorinated greenhouse gases, or of the national measures on penalties for breaches of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(2) and 13(2) of that regulation, Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 303/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump equipment containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, Article 12(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 304/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of companies and personnel as regards stationary fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases, Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 305/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gases from high-voltage switchgear, Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements and the conditions for mutual recognition for the certification of personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gas-based solvents from equipment, Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 307/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, minimum requirements for training programmes and the conditions for mutual recognition of training attestations for personnel as regards air-conditioning systems in certain motor vehicles containing certain fluorinated greenhouse gases and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2008 of 2 April 2008 establishing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the format for notification of the training and certification programmes of the Member States.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-838/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — BP v FRA

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/38

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — BP v FRA
   (Case T-838/16)
   (2017/C 038/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BP (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: E. Lazar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of mishandling and leakage of his/her personal data and other several irregularities occurred during the defendant’s proceedings for dealing with his/her requests to access documents under Regulation no 1049/2001 and his/her requests to access information under article 13 of Regulation 45/2001;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of violations of several rules intended to confer rights on individuals;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s irregular actions during the execution of the judgment in case T-658/13P;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant’s moral prejudice;

               —

               order the defendant to pay material damages;

               —

               order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs paid by the applicant for seeking legal advice in pre-litigation phase;

               —

               order the defendant to pay default interest on the amount eventually awarded;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entire costs, even in the case the application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breaches of rules intended to confer rights on individuals, including, amongst others, a breach of data protection rules envisaged in article 4(1) (b) of the Regulation no 1049/2001 read in conjunction with article 4(4) of the same regulation and with implementing rules of Regulation 1049/2001, a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a breach of data protection rules envisaged in various articles of the Regulation no 45/2001 and in implementing rules of Regulation 45/2001, and a breach of the duty of care.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of confidentiality which led to the leak of the applicant’s personal data to third parties and to the press, and alleging a misuse of powers and manifest and grave lack of due diligence and care during processing operations of applicant’s personal data


title: Case C-460/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Monitoring plan — Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 — Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV — Calculation of the emissions of an installation — Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred — Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate — Legality of the exclusion)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-460/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Monitoring plan - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV - Calculation of the emissions of an installation - Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred - Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate - Legality of the exclusion))
   (2017/C 070/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second sentence of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and point 10(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the lime combustion installation, regardless of whether or not that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case C-238/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/13

         Action brought on 19 May 2011 — French Republic v European Parliament
   (Case C-238/11)
   2011/C 226/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the deliberations of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 relating to the calendar of periods of sessions of the Parliament for the year 2013;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward a single plea in support of its action, alleging, first, infringement of the Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and of Protocol No 3 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the ECSC Treaty, and, second, non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 1 October 1997 in Case C-345/95 France v Parliament [1997] ECR I-5235.
   According to the French Government, in providing that two of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held each year in Strasbourg are to be reduced from four to two days and will take place, in 2013, during the same week of October, the European Parliament sought to circumvent the rule that the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, must be held in Strasbourg. The contested deliberation leads, in reality, to one of the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions which must be held in Strasbourg being eliminated. Its sole objective is thus to diminish the length of time the MEPs are present at the seat of the European Parliament, without its being justified by internal organisational requirements relating to the work of the Parliament.