title: Judgment of the Court of 7 January 2003 in Case C-306/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Banque internationale pour l'Afrique occidentale SA (BIAO) v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret Community law in a context where it is not directly applicable — Provisions for risk under a loan guarantee — Taking into account of the individual situation of the debtor and of its State of establishment — Date on which the risk may or must be evaluated and entered on the balance sheet)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 44/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                             Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, Regis-
                         of 7 January 2003                                   trar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2003, in which it has
                                                                             ruled:
in Case C-306/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Banque internationale pour                       1.    The questions appearing in the second and third parts of the
l’Afrique occidentale SA (BIAO) v Finanzamt für Großun-                            reference for a preliminary ruling, concerning the interpretation
                   ternehmen in Hamburg (1)                                        of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978
                                                                                based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts
                                                                                of certain types of companies, are admissible.
(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts of certain
types of companies — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret                  2.    The Fourth Directive 78/660 does not preclude a provision
Community law in a context where it is not directly applicable                     intended to cover possible losses or debts arising from a
— Provisions for risk under a loan guarantee — Taking into                         commitment appearing at the foot of the balance sheet pursuant
account of the individual situation of the debtor and of its                       to Article 14 of that directive from being entered on the
State of establishment — Date on which the risk may or                             liabilities side of the balance sheet pursuant to Article 20(1),
     must be evaluated and entered on the balance sheet)                           provided that the loss or debt in question may be characterised
                                                                                as ‘likely or certain’ at the balance-sheet date. Article 31(1)(e)
                                                                                of that directive does not exclude the possibility that, in order to
                          (2003/C 44/01)                                           ensure compliance with the principle of prudence and the
                                                                                principle that a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities be
                                                                                given, the most appropriate method of valuation might be to
                   (Language of the case: German)                                  carry out a globalised assessment of all the relevant factors.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       3.    In circumstances such as those in point in the main proceedings,
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  repayment of a loan, which takes place after the balance-sheet
                                                                                date (that being the relevant date for valuing balance-sheet
                                                                                items), does not constitute a fact necessitating retrospective
                                                                                revaluation of a provision relating to that loan entered on the
                                                                                liabilities side of the balance sheet. However, compliance with
                                                                                the principle that a true and fair view of the assets and liabilities
In Case C-306/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                         be given requires that mention should be made in the annual
EC by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary                        accounts of the disappearance of the risk covered by that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                        provision.
Banque internationale pour l’Afrique occidentale SA (BIAO)
and Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg, on the
interpretation of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the                  (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,
p. 11), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, J.-P. Puissochet (President of Chamber),


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-249/99 P: Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Finding of inadmissibility at first instance)

text:
C 63/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            4.3.2000
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                        of 26 November 1999
                      of 18 November 1999                                  in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings
                                                                           against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade
                                                                                (ANAS) (1)
in Case C-249/99 P: Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
                                                                           Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
(Appeal — Action for failure to act — Finding of inadmissi-                Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public
                      bility at first instance)                                                     service contracts)
                           (2000/C 63/18)                                                             (2000/C 63/19)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-249/99 P, Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, estab-                 In Case C-192/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
lished in Las Palmas, Spain, represented by M. de Cristóbal               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte dei Conti
López, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in                  (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the ex post facto review
Luxembourg at the Head Office of Fiduciaire Beaumanoir, 48                 proceedings pending before that court against Azienda Nazion-
Rue de Bragance — appeal against the order of the Court of                 ale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) on the interpretation of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 1999 in Case                    Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
T-311/97 Pescados Congelados Jogamar v Commission [1999]                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
ECR II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside, the other               contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court, composed of
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                       G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
European Communities (Agent: J. Guerra Fernández) — the                   D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,
Court (First Chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the             Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puis-
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                     sochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an               V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
order on 18 November 1999 in which it:                                     Registrar, has made an order on 26 November 1999, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           The Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised
2. Orders Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL to pay the costs.                 by the Corte dei Conti in its decision for reference of 7 April 1998.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-570/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Simvoulio Apokhetevseon Levkosias v Anatheoretiki Arkhi Prosforon

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Simvoulio Apokhetevseon Levkosias v Anatheoretiki Arkhi Prosforon
   (Case C-570/08)
   (2009/C 55/20)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Supreme Court of Cyprus)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Simvoulio Apokhetevseon Levkosias (Nicosia Sewage Council)

      Respondentt: Anatheoretiki Arkhi Prosforon (Tenders Review Authority)
   Question referred
   Does Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665/EC recognise contracting authorities as having a right to judicial review of cancellation decisions by bodies responsible for review procedures which are not judicial bodies?


title: Case C-460/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/44

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   (Case C-460/06)
   (2006/C 326/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nadine Paquay

      Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement for the employee before the end of the period of protection?

               2.

               Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unrelated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary to Article 2(1) (or 5(1)) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?

      (1)  OJ L 348, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 39, p. 40.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 In Case C-9/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   11 March 2004
   In Case C-9/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) - Tax legislation - Transfer of residence for tax purposes to another Member State - Methods of taxing increased value of securities)
   (2004/C 94/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-9/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant and Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing, in order to prevent a risk of tax avoidance, a mechanism for taxing as yet unrealised increases in value such as that laid down by Article 167a of the French Code Général des Impôts, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside that State.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 2.03.2002.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2002 in Cases T-107/01 R and T-175/01 R, Société des mines de Sacilor — Lormines v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Suspension of operation — Interim measures — Article 88 ECSC)

text:
26.10.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 261/13
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  e sulla vegetazione’ having its registered office in Rome, Italy,
                                                                             represented by P. Grassi and G. Russo, lawyers, with an
                            of 10 July 2002                                  address for service in Luxembourg against Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and
in Case T-146/00 DEP: S. Ruf and M. Stier v Office for the                   R. Amorosi) — application for the annulment of the measure
Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                        allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission requesting
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                the applicant to repay part of the sums granted under
                                                                             financing contract B4/91/3046/11396 concluded between the
                          (Taxation of costs)                                Commission and the applicant to enable the organisation of a
                                                                             conference to study the effects of atmospheric pollutants on
                           (2002/C 261/21)                                   climate and vegetation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of M, Vilaras, President of the Chamber,
                    (Language of the case: German)                           V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             made an order on 10 July 2002, the operative part of which is
                                                                             as follows:
In Case T-146/00 DEP: S. Ruf, residing in Ettlingen (Germany),
and M. Stier, residing in Pfinztal (Germany), represented by                 1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
V. Spitz, A.N. Klinger and A. Gaul, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Office for the Harmonisation of               2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent:
E. Joly) — application for taxation of the costs to be paid by
the applicants to the defendant following the judgment of the                (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
Court of First Instance of 20 June 2001 in Case T-146/00 Ruf
and Stier v OHIM (‘DAKOTA’ Image) [2001] ECR II-1797 —
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July 2002,
in which it:
                                                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Fixes the total costs to be paid by the applicants to the Office in Case                                 INSTANCE
T-146/00 at EUR 2 692,63.
                                                                                of 11 July 2002
( 1) OJ C 233, 12.8.2000.
                                                                             in Cases T-107/01 R and T-175/01 R, Société des mines de
                                                                             Sacilor — Lormines v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  (Interlocutory proceedings — Suspension of operation —
                                                                                Interim measures — Article 88 ECSC)
                            of 10 July 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 261/23)
in Case T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno
internazionale ‘Effette degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
clima e sulla vegetazione’ v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Application actually concerning a                    In Cases T-107/01 R and T-175/01 R, Société des mines de
contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of the Community                  Sacilor — Lormines, established in Puteaux, France, represent-
                   judicature — Inadmissibility)                             ed by R. Schmitt, avocat against Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and L. Ström) — application
                           (2002/C 261/22)                                   for suspension of the operation of the Commission– s decisions
                                                                             of 30 March, 21 April, 9 and 10 July 2001, and for interim
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         measures ordering the Commission to uphold the complaints
                                                                             submitted to it by the applicant on 9 February and 9 May
                                                                             2001 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
In Case T-387/00: Comitato organizzatore del convegno                        an order on 11 July 2002, the operative part of which is as
internazionale ‘Effette degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima             follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 261/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.10.2002
1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                    A. Whelan) — application for annulment of Commission
                                                                              Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
                                                                              proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
                                                                              of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium
                                                                              gluconate) or, alternatively, for the reduction of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision —
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                                                                              M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            of 9 July 2002                                    Registrar, made an order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of
                                                                              which is as follows:
in Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European
                             Parliament (1)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on this action.
(Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-                     2.    The Commission shall pay the costs.
ment pension scheme — Suspension of payment — Con-
                  firmatory act — Admissibility)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 68.
                           (2002/C 261/24)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana, former Member of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy),                                            INSTANCE
represented by W Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, lawyers,
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                                           of 8 August 2002
— application for annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 26 March 2001 suspending payment of the
pension of the applicant following his election to the Regional               in Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesell-
Council for the Region of Umbria (Italy) — the Court of First                  schaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                 (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)
order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                       No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                    (2002/C 261/26)
2.     The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ 2001 C 245.
                                                                              In Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                              mbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International)
                                                                              Ltd, established in Europort Gibraltar (Gibraltar), Metalsivas
                                                                              Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna
                                                                              (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Com-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen
                                                                              and B. Eggers,) — application for suspension of the operation
                            of 9 July 2002                                    of Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March
                                                                              2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against
in Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG v Commission of the                        imports of certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) or of
                     European Communities ( 1)                                any other provisional measure likely to permit the applicants
                                                                              to import into the Community, in addition to the tariff quota
(Action for annulment — Action which has become devoid                        and free of additional duties, 95 129 tonnes of alloy hot rolled
    of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order for costs)                     flat products covered by reference 4 of the said Regulation —
                                                                              the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
                           (2002/C 261/25)                                    on 8 August 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: German)                           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG, established in Basel
(Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold and M. Karl, lawyers,


title: Case T-419/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/41

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission
   (Case T-419/14)
   2014/C 282/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant; and/or

               —

               Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (1) in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.

      (1)  OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p. 1


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
14.12.2001        EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 356/11
                                                                  III
                                                                (Notices)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                             NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                          (2001/C 356/06)
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities is publishing in the Official Journal of the European
           Communities C 356 A of 14 December 2001 the following open competition:
           Greek edition
           CJ/LA/14 (Lawyer-linguists of Greek mother-tongue)
           To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of the European
           Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           The final date for receipt of applications is 6 February 2002.


title: Case C-544/08: Action brought on 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/35

         Action brought on 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-544/08)
   (2009/C 44/58)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, L. Jelínek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Commission claims the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (1), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64 of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the Directive into the domestic legal order expired on 10 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1.


title: Case C-313/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
20.9.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 226/9
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by the Italian Republic                   1.   Where the period for calculation of the basis of contribu-
    against Commission of the European Communities                            tion for unemployment benefit coincided with exercise of
                                                                              the right to reduced working hours and salary in order to
                        (Case C-307/03)                                       care for a child, does the correct transposition of clause 2
                                                                              (8) of the framework agreement contained in Directive
                        (2003/C 226/13)                                       96/34 (1) into the domestic law of Member States, and
                                                                              specifically into Spanish law, require those States to adopt
An action against the Commission of the European                              in social security legislation relating specifically to unem-
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    ployment benefit measures to offset the effect of the lower
European Communities on 18 July 2003 by the Italian                           contribution to the social security scheme as a result of the
Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent,                   reduced salary received by a worker exercising that right,
assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.                          so as not to cause the worker's unemployment benefit to
                                                                              be reduced?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         2.   Should the preceding question be answered affirmatively,
—     Annul the financial correction imposed against Italy by
      Commission Decision No C(2003) 1539 final of 15 May
      2003.                                                                   Can failure to comply with the duty under clause 2(8) of
                                                                              the framework agreement contained in Directive 96/34,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               once the time-limit established in Article 2 of the Directive
                                                                              for its transposition has expired, be remedied directly by
First, the applicant claims that the spot checks were of poor                 the national court in the proceedings in which these
quality: it disagrees with the findings of the Commission's                   preliminary questions are raised, in the decision adopted
officials as regards the procedure and effectiveness of the                   to determine those proceedings?
checks carried out.
As regards failure to repay aid in respect of non-eligible areas,
the applicant maintains that financial corrections may not be            (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
made where the Member State has kept to measures agreed                      agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
with the Commission and improved checking procedures, as                     ETUC (OJ L 145 of 19.6.1996, p. 4).
admitted by the Commission and as shown by the fact that it is
sought to confer retroactive effectiveness to the scope of check-
ing procedures which have been gradually improved.
Finally, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is
vitiated by misapplication of Article 9(3) of Regulation                 Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the
No 3887/92 (1) (areas to be used for calculation of the aid).                European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-313/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/15)
(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2003
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by M.-J. Jonczy, acting as Agent.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social No 33 by order of that Court of 8 July 2003 in the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
case of Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de
                         Empleo (Inem)                                   —     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
                        (Case C-309/03)                                        Directive 1999/63/EC (1) of 21 June 1999 concerning the
                                                                               Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers
                        (2003/C 226/14)                                        concluded by the European Community Shipowners"
                                                                               Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) — Annex:
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social                      European Agreement on the organisation of working time of
(Social Court) No 33 of 8 July 2003, received at the Court                     seafarers, or in any event, by failing to communicate any
Registry on 23 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de Empleo                      failed to satisfy its obligations under Article 3(1) of that
(Inem) on the following questions:                                             directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/10                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          represented by Claudia Schmidt of the Commission's Legal
                                                                            Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
30 June 2002.
                                                                            1.    Rule that the imposition of a ban on the use of a section of
                                                                                the A 12 Inntal motorway between kilometre 20,359 in
                                                                                the Kundl local authority area and kilometre 66,780 in the
                                                                                Ampass local authority area by heavy goods vehicles with a
(1) OJ L 167 of 2.7.1999, p. 33.                                                  total weight exceeding 7,5 tonnes which carry certain
                                                                                goods is incompatible with the Republic of Austria's obli-
                                                                                gations under Articles 1 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 881/92 (1), Articles 1 and 6 of Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 3118/93 (2) and Articles 28 EC to 30 EC;
Reference for a         preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
Administratif de       Paris by judgment of that Court of                         proceedings.
3 July 2003 in          the case of Serge Briheche against
Minister for the        Interior, Internal Security and Local
                             Freedoms                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-319/03)
                                                                            On 27 May 2003, the First Minister of the Land of Tyrol imposed,
                          (2003/C 226/16)                                   on the basis of the Austrian Immissionsschutzgesetz — Luft
                                                                            (Immission Control Act — air), a ban on the use by heavy
                                                                            goods vehicles carrying certain goods of a 46 km stretch of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            A 12 Inntal motorway. This absolute ban applies to the vehicles
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                            covered with immediate effect from 1 August 2003 for an inde-
Administratif de Paris (Administrative Court, Paris) of 3 July
                                                                            finite period.
2003, received at the Court Registry on 24 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Serge Briheche against Minister
for the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms on the               The Commission takes the view that, in imposing this ban, the
following question:                                                         Republic of Austria has acted in breach of the abovementioned
                                                                            obligations of primary and secondary law.
                                                                            The transit ban or the ‘pressure to use railways’ creates addi-
Does Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (1) preclude                   tional delays and costs for the heavy goods vehicles and under-
France from maintaining in force the provisions of Article 8 of             takings concerned. The ban thus constitutes a manifest obstacle
Law No 75-3 of 3 January 1975, as amended by Law                            to the free movement of goods. The approach chosen by the
No 79-569 of 7 July 1979 and Law No 2001-397 of 9 May                       Republic of Austria in applying the ban only to transit traffic,
2001, concerning widows who have not remarried?                             approximately 80 % of which is effected by foreign hauliers,
                                                                            thus entails preferential treatment of the national/local move-
                                                                            ment of goods or, in other words, indirect discrimination of the
                                                                            transport of goods by foreign carriers. That discrimination
                                                                            cannot be justified on the ground of environmental protection.
(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-           For that reason alone, it must be found that the Republic of
    mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women         Austria has infringed Article 28 EC.
    as regards access to employment, vocational training and promo-
    tion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40).
                                                                            The Commission argues alternatively that, even if the measure
                                                                            is not discriminatory, the argument based on protection of the
                                                                            environment cannot be accepted because the Austrian measure
                                                                            does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportion-
                                                                            ality. There are less stringent measures, that is to say, measures
                                                                            which appear equally suitable to achieve the aim sought but
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the                     which present less of an obstacle to the free movement of
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                      goods. Since it cannot be justified on the grounds of environ-
                                                                            mental protection, the measure ultimately infringes Article 28 EC.
                          (Case C-320/03)
                          (2003/C 226/17)                                   It is clear from Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 and Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3118/93 that, in principle, conditions for the free
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                circulation of goods transport other than those laid down in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July                 those regulations are impermissible. There is no exception
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         limiting the scope of that principle. There has thus been a


title: Case T-529/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Multi Win — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)
   (Case T-529/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Multi Win - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann and S. Hanne, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 1326/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Multi Win as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-564/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/53

      Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek
      (Case T-564/11)
      (2012/C 25/105)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nigel Paul Farage (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bennett, Solicitor)

         Defendants: European Parliament and Jerzy Buzek (Brussels, Belgium)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Revoke the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek, dated 2 March 2010 imposing on the applicant a forfeiture of entitlement to daily subsistence allowance of ten days, as well as the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 24 March 2010 and of the President of the European Parliament of 31 August 2011, declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request for parliamentary immunity; and

                  —

                  In the alternative, a declaration that none of the above-mentioned decisions are valid or ought to have been made.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 84, p. 99), as the speech of the applicant on 24 February 2010 was made in his capacity as a member of the European Parliament. As such, the speech in question made political points and it is of prime importance that a member of the European Parliament can speak freely.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of free speech, as no proper account was taken of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2011 L 116, p. 1)

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as any participation of the President of the Parliament in the decision making process in the present matter, or of anybody else who was present during the plenary session of 24 February 2010 and had formed a view, disabled such person from taking part in such process.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to correctly interpret Rule 152(1) and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the penalties set out in the latter provision must be read in the context of its opening words, relating primarily to serious cases of disorder or disruption ‘…in violation of the principles laid down in Rule 9…’.


title: Case C-406/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi (Freedom to move and reside within the territory of the European Union — Unemployment allowances — Requirement actually to reside in national territory)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi
   (Case C-406/04) (1)

   (Freedom to move and reside within the territory of the European Union - Unemployment allowances - Requirement actually to reside in national territory)
   (2006/C 224/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gérald De Cuyper

      Defendant: Office national de l'emploi
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 18 EC establishing European citizenship — Provision of national law that makes the granting of unemployment benefits conditional on actual residence in the national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Freedom of movement and residence, conferred on every citizen of the Union by Article 18 EC, does not preclude a residence clause, such as that applied in the case in the main proceedings, which is imposed on an unemployed person over 50 years of age who is exempt from the requirement of proving that he is available for work, as a condition for the retention of his entitlement to unemployment benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-553/12 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-169/08 DEI v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/10

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 20 September 2012 in Case T-169/08 DEI v Commission
   (Case C-553/12 P)
   2013/C 32/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Khristoforou and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and A. Ikonomou, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (DEI), Hellenic Republic, Energiaki Thessalonikis AE, Elliniki Energia kai Anaptixi AE (H.E. & D.S.A.)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment of 20 September 2012 in Case T-169/08 in its entirety;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter if it is considered that the state of the proceedings so permits;

               —

               order DEI to pay its own costs, and the Commission’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               By the first ground of appeal, the Commission contends that in the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation and application of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, the General Court applied those two articles to the facts of the present case incorrectly, which also constitutes incorrect characterisation and misinterpretation of the evidence and incorrect interpretation of the basis of the contested decision adopted by the Commission. The General Court’s assessments are also based on incorrect, defective and insufficient reasoning, they distort the sense of and misinterpret the evidence and they distort the basis of the contested decision adopted by the Commission, because that decision demonstrated that the State measures at issue adopted by the Hellenic Republic affected the structure of the market and created inequality of opportunity on the lignite market — inequality which had the effect of allowing DEI, a public undertaking, to extend its dominant position from the primary lignite-supply market to the secondary market for the wholesale supply of electricity in Greece, preventing new competitors from entering the market.

               —

               According to the Commission, the judgment under appeal is also vitiated by error because it entirely overlooked the fact that the contested decision adopted by the Commission demonstrated that DEI’s preferential access to lignite, which was retained by the State measures at issue even after the liberalisation of the electricity market in Greece, and after the creation of the wholesale electricity supply market in May 2005, resulted in the structure of the market being affected because of the inequality of opportunity, thereby creating a situation in which DEI, solely by exercising its quasi-monopolistic rights to exploit lignite, was in a position to extend its dominant position from the primary to the secondary market. In that way DEI was led to engage in abusive behaviour on that secondary market, restricting or preventing access by new competitors (see, inter alia, the Court’s judgments in Raso, GB-Inno-BM, Connect Austria, Dusseldorp, CBEM and MOTOE). The extension of DEI’s dominant position from the primary to the secondary market and its retention on that market, and the undoubted competitive advantage that DEI enjoyed in electricity production because of the low cost of lignite, enabled DEI to feed electricity into the interconnected network in Greece at lower prices, in greater quantities and for a longer period, factors which amount to abusive behaviour (although the Court’s case-law does not require proof of behaviour of such kind, having regard to the specific facts of the present case).

               —

               The contested decision adopted by the Commission also found that DEI’s competitors needed a diversified spectrum of sources, including access to sufficient quantities of lignite, in order for them to enter the electricity market, viably remain there and effectively participate in competition there. That fact should have been known both to the Hellenic Republic, which failed to grant operating licences for exploitable lignite deposits to DEI’s potential competitors, and to DEI when it exercised its quasi-monopolistic rights, using its dominant position on the primary lignite market as leverage to extend its dominant position to the secondary market for the wholesale supply of electricity and to maintain it there, with the result that it de facto obstructed or prevented access of the potential new competitors to the secondary market in question.


title: Case T-637/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014  — Euris Consult v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of translation services into Maltese — Rules relating to the procedure for the submission of tenders — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Failure to comply with the rules on submission designed to ensure the confidentiality of the contents of tenders before opening — Plea of inapplicability — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 143 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Euris Consult v Parliament
   (Case T-637/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of translation services into Maltese - Rules relating to the procedure for the submission of tenders - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Failure to comply with the rules on submission designed to ensure the confidentiality of the contents of tenders before opening - Plea of inapplicability - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 143 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002))
   2014/C 194/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and F. Poilvache, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 18 October 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the interinstitutional call for tenders MT/2011/EU, concerning translation services into Maltese

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Euris Consult Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/4

         Criteria for the assignment of cases to chambers
   (2008/C 272/04)
   On 30 September 2008, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal decided to maintain in force until 30 September 2011 the following conditions for the assignment of cases to chambers:

               —

               the First Chamber shall hear all cases, with the exception of those principally concerning questions of recruitment, assessment/promotion and final termination of service, which shall be heard by the Second Chamber;

               —

               a number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber, regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a plenary meeting of the Tribunal;

               —

               derogations from the above rules on assignment may be made for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and reasonably varied workload within the Tribunal.


title: Case T-438/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Stephens v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/54

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Stephens v Commission
   (Case T-438/03) (1)

   (2008/C 313/96)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-176/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission (Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning the maintenance of OHIM’s computer systems — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Implied Commission decision to dismiss — New claims — Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/15

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission
   (Case T-176/08) (1)

   (Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning the maintenance of OHIM’s computer systems - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Implied Commission decision to dismiss - New claims - Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 233/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: infeurope (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N.Bambara and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts under the tendering procedure AO/042/05 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for software maintenance relating to OHIM core business systems on trade marks and designs, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 2 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, APPLICATION for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               infeurope shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene submitted by European Dynamics SA.

               4.

               infeurope, the Commission and European Dynamics shall bear their own costs in connection with the application to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-349/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Auditeur du Travail v Yangwei SPRL

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Auditeur du Travail v Yangwei SPRL
   (Case C-349/11)
   2011/C 282/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auditeur du Travail

      Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

      Question referred

   Must Clause 5.1(a) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as:

               —

               The obligation to keep a copy of the part-time employment contract or an extract, containing the work schedule, identity and signature of the two parties at the place where the rules governing employment can be consulted (Article 157 of the Programme Law);

               —

               The obligation that it must be possible to ascertain at any time when the cycle commences (Article 158 of the Programme Law);

               —

               As regards variable work schedules, the obligation for the employer to notify the worker by notice five days in advance; a notice must furthermore be displayed at the beginning of the day containing the individual work schedule of each part-time worker; this notice must furthermore be retained for one year (Article 159 of the Programme Law);

               —

               The obligation for an employer who employs part-time workers to have a document recording all the departures from work schedules referred to in Articles 157 to 159 (Article 160 of the Programme Law), a document that must be kept in accordance with certain conditions specified in Article 161 of the Programme Law?

      (1)  OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9


title: Case F-5/16: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Stanley v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Request for reclassification of a contract — Reasonable period — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/57

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Stanley v Commission
      (Case F-5/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Request for reclassification of a contract - Reasonable period - None - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 364/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: John Stanley (Apia, Samoa) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant’s contract as a temporary staff contract or, in the alternative, compensation for the material damage alleged to have been suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr John Stanley shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 25/4/2016, p. 37.


title: Case T-50/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
   (Case T-50/13)
   2013/C 86/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Müller (Ulm, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2012 in Case R 474/2012-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VOODOO’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 5 832 464

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Andreas Müller

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-380/09 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2009 by Melli Bank plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08: Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union, supported by French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/30

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2009 by Melli Bank plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08: Melli Bank plc v Council of the European Union, supported by French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-380/09 P)
   2009/C 282/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Melli Bank plc (represented by: S. Gadhia, Solicitor, T. Din, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the contested judgment;

               —

               Allow the applications in Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08;

               —

               Annul paragraph 4 of Table B of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc;

               —

               If the Court finds that Article 7(2)(d) of the Regulation is mandatory in effect, to declare Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation 423/2007/EC (2) inapplicable; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that in the Contested Judgment the CFI erred in law in a number of respects and in so doing acted in breach of Community law in four principal respects:

               1)

               The CFI erred in law in incorrectly interpreting Article 7(2)(d) of the Regulation as being a mandatory provision;

               2)

               The CFI erred in law in holding that Article 7(2)(d) of the Regulation was consistent with the Community law principle of proportionality;

               3)

               The CFI erred in law in the formulation and application of the test for determining whether the Appellant was owned and controlled by the Parent; and

               4)

               The CFI erred in law in concluding that the Council had satisfied its obligation to give reasons for its decision to list the Appellant.

         Consequently, the Appellant requests that the Court of Justice:

               1)

               Set aside the Contested Judgment;

               2)

               Allow the applications in Cases T-246/08 and T-332/08;

               3)

               Annul paragraph 4 of Table B of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc;

               4)

               If the Court finds that Article 7(2)(d) of the Regulation purports to be mandatory in effect, declare Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation 423/2007/EC inapplicable; and

               5)

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 163, p. 29

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran,
   OJ L 103, p. 1
   OJ L 335M, p. 969 (MT)


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 December 1998 in Case T-93/98: Ioannis Rentzos v. European Parliament (Staff report - Rejection of a request for revision of a staff report - Action for annulment - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 48/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                    of 16 December 1998                                of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                       sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ L 213,
in   Case    T-93/98:     Ioannis Rentzos      v.   European           30.7.1998);
                         Parliament (1)
(Staff report Ð Rejection of a request for revision of a
staff report Ð Action for annulment Ð Time-limits for              Ð in the alternative, annul Article 3; and
          bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                        (1999/C 48/56)
                                                                   Ð order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-93/98: Ioannis Rentzos, an official of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
European       Parliament,     residing   at     Niederanven
(Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     The applicant has been manufacturing and marketing
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de                  under licence a range of high-quality shoes under the
Longwy, v. European Parliament (Agent: Yannis Pantalis)            Camel Boots trade mark since 1978. Camel Boots are
Ð application for annulment of the applicant's staff               extremely successful products and can be found all over
report for the period 1995-1997, of the defendant's                the world.
decision rejecting the request for revision of that report
and, in so far as might be necessary, of the defendant's
decision rejecting the applicant's complaint Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D.              Under Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 98/43/EC, the
Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               applicant will no longer be able to advertise its Camel
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 December           Boots shoes, unless the Member States elect to exempt
1998, the operative part of which is as follows:                   such advertising from the general advertising and
                                                                   sponsorship ban enacted by the Directive. The applicant
                                                                   seeks the annulment of Directive 98/43/EC or, failing that,
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   of Article 3 thereof.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                   The applicant's first plea is that Directive 98/43/EC lacks
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.                                           a legal basis and is ultra vires. Both the content and the
                                                                   legislative history of the Directive show that it is
                                                                   primarily, if not exclusively, a public health measure. By
                                                                   virtue of Article 129(4) of the EC Treaty, the Community
                                                                   may not adopt harmonising measures with respect to
                                                                   public health.
Action brought on 19 October 1998 by Salamander AG
against the European Parliament and the Council of the
                       European Union                              Article 100a cannot provide a legal basis for the Directive,
                       (Case T-172/98)                             as any effect that the Directive may have on the internal
                                                                   market will only be marginal. In fact, the Directive's
                        (1999/C 48/57)                             impact on the internal market will be negative. The same
                                                                   conclusion applies with respect to Articles 57(2) and 66 of
               (Language of the case: English)                     the EC Treaty, which are also mentioned as the legal basis
                                                                   for the Directive.
An action against the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on             The applicant's second plea is that Directive 98/43/EC
19 October 1998 by Salamander AG, represented by                   creates unjustifiable obstacles to the free movement of
Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis, with an address           goods and the freedom to provide services and therefore
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and            infringes Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty.
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's third plea is that the Directive provides
                                                                   insufficient reasoning for its harsh treatment of good-faith
                                                                   brand diversification advertising, and does not explain
Ð annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament              whether and how the Community legislature has taken
    and the Council of 6 July 1998, on the approximation           into account the subsidiarity principle.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-392/99: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Incomplete transposition)

text:
C 146/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 —    by failing to adopt provisions by which the competent
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                           authority, before granting a permit to undertakings which
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and                                regenerate waste oils or use them as fuel, may satisfy itself
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-                        that health is appropriately protected where waste oils
eral; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 are used as fuel and that the best available technology not
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                                      entailing excessive cost is used where waste oils are
                                                                                regenerated or used as fuel;
1.    Annuls Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2000/536/EC
      of 2 June 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to Seleco
      SpA in so far as it provides that the Italian Republic is to take
      all the necessary measures to recover the aid referred to in
      Article 1 from Seleco Multimedia Srl with regard to the part
      not recoverable from Seleco SpA;                                       —    by failing to lay down that residues from the combustion
                                                                                of waste oils are to be disposed of in accordance with
                                                                                Article 9 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                                1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84,
                                                                                p. 43), and, from 27 June 1995, in accordance with
3.    Orders, in Case C-328/99, the Italian Republic and the                      Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own                    1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
      costs;                                                                      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ
                                                                                1991 L 78, p. 32), which, pursuant to Council Directive
4.    Orders, in Case C-399/00, the Commission of the European                    91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste
      Communities to pay the costs.                                               (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28),
                                                                                replaced Article 9 of Directive 78/319;
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             —    by not providing for periodical inspection of undertakings
                                                                                which regenerate waste oils or use them as fuel, or
                                                                                for examination of trends in the state of technical
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            development and/or of the environment with a view to
                                                                                revising, where necessary, permits granted to those
                                                                                undertakings;
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 10 April 2003
in Case C-392/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             —    by failing to convey to the Commission information
                 ties v Portuguese Republic ( 1)
                                                                                concerning technical expertise and the experience gained
                                                                                and results obtained through the application of measures
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            taken pursuant to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of
Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Incom-                            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975
                         plete transposition)                                     L 194, p. 23), as amended by Council Directive 87/101/
                                                                                EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43),
                           (2003/C 146/03)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       under Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439, as
                    in the European Court Reports)                           amended by Directive 87/101, and the first paragraph of
                                                                             Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty (now the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third
                                                                             paragraph of Article 249 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
In Case C-392/99, Commission of the European Communities                     composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
(Agents: L. Ström and M.A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic                    R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Col-
(Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Telles Romão): Application for a                neric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
declaration that:                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/3
1.    Declares that:                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
      —     by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions
            requiring the competent authority, before granting a
            permit to undertakings which regenerate waste oils or use                                   of 10 April 2003
            them as fuel, to satisfy itself that health is appropriately
            protected where waste oils are used as fuel and that the          in Case C-142/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
            best available technology not entailing excessive cost is                       munities v Nederlandse Antillen ( 1)
            used where waste oils are regenerated or used as fuel;
                                                                              (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas
                                                                              countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the
      —     by failing to lay down, within the prescribed period, that
                                                                              overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures —
            residues from the combustion of waste oils are to be
                                                                              Regulations (EC) No 2352/97 and No 2494/97 — Action
            disposed of in accordance with the obligations flowing
                                                                                for annulment — Inadmissibility of the action)
            from Article 9 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of
            20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste and, from
            27 June 1995, in accordance with the obligations arising                                     (2003/C 146/04)
            under Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
            15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive
            91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, which were already                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
            owed by the Member States under Article 9 of Directive
            78/319;                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      —     by not providing, within the prescribed period, for
            periodical inspection of undertakings which regenerate
            waste oils or use them as fuel, or for examination of             In Case C-142/00 P, Commission of the European Communi-
            trends in the state of technical development and/or of the        ties (Agent: T. van Rijn), supported by French Republic (Agents:
            environment with a view to revising, where necessary,             G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim) and by Council of the
            permits granted to those undertakings;                            European Union (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin): Appeal
                                                                              against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2000
      —     by failing to convey to the Commission information                in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 Nederlandse Antillen v
            concerning technical expertise and the experience gained          Commission [2000] ECR II-201, seeking to have that judgment
            and results obtained through the application of measures          set aside the other parties to the proceedings being: Nederland-
            taken pursuant to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of                 se Antillen (represented by M. M. Slotboom and P. V. F. Bos)
            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended            and Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), the Court (Sixth
            by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
            1986,                                                             Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and F. Macken
                                                                              (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
                                                                              Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                              on 10 April 2003, in which it:
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439, as
      amended by Directive 87/101;                                            1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities of 10 February 2000 in Joined Cases
                                                                                T-32/98 and T-41/98 Nederlandse Antillen v Commission;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             2.    Dismisses as inadmissible the Nederlandse Antillen’s appli-
                                                                                cations for annulment;
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                        3.    Orders the Nederlandse Antillen to pay the costs both at first
                                                                                instance and on appeal;
                                                                              4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the
( 1) OJ C 34 of 05.02.2000.                                                         Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case T-92/05: Action brought on 25 February 2005 by Movingpeople.net International B.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/26

         Action brought on 25 February 2005 by Movingpeople.net International B.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-92/05)
   (2005/C 115/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 February 2005 by Movingpeople.net International B.V., established in Helmond (The Netherlands), represented by G.S.C.M. van Roeyen and T. Berendsen, lawyers.
   Thomas Schäfer, residing in Schashagen (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision to the extent that Community trademark application No 1 997 733 will be accepted for all goods applied for in classes 10, 12 and 20;

               —

               order OHIM and/or the opponent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Movingpeople.net International B.V.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The figurative mark ‘movingpeople.net’ for goods in classes 10, 12 and 20 (Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water,...; all the aforesaid goods specially made for disabled persons and other persons requiring assistance;...) — application No 1 997 733

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Thomas Schäfer

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word mark ‘MOVING PEOPLE’ for goods and services in classes 12 and 37 (Vehicles; flight apparatus, electrical operated wheelchairs and patient wheelchairs,...)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the Community trade mark application for the contested goods

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94