title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/93, T-433/93 and T-434/93: Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld, and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund - Decision reducing the amount of financial assistance - Application for annulment - Non-existence - Admissibility - Breach of an essential procedural requirement)

text:
8 . 4 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/9
established in Groningen, Netherlands, Rotterdamse                    Brautigam and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of
Aannemersvereniging,          established     in     Rotterdam,       the European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) —
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'de Rijnstreek',                     application pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for
established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Stichting                      annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3814/92 of
Aanbestedingsregeling           van     de     Samenwerkende          28 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC)
Bouwbedrijven in Friesland, established in Leeuwarden,                No 1785/81 and introducing application in Spain of the
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Prijsregelnd Vereniging                    sugar sector prices provided for by that Regulation (2 ) and
Nijmegen en Omstreken, established in Nijmegen,                       for damages under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Patroons Verenigingen in de                Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, — the Court of First Instance
Boouwbedrijven Noor-Holland-Noord, established in                     (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President, R.
Alkmaar, Netherlands, Utrechtse Aannemers Vereniging,                 Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf and C. W.
established in Utrecht, Netherlands, Vereniging                       Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Wegenbouw         Aannemers         Combinatie       Nederland,       21 February 1995 , in which it:
established in Zeist, Netherlands, and Zuid Nederlandse
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Heeze, Netherlands,              1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
represented by Louis H. van Lennep, of the Hague Bar, and                  seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EEC)
Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an                   No 3814/92 of 28 December 1992 amending
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                   Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and introducing
Frieden, 6, Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                          application in Spain of the sugar sector prices provided
European Communities (Agents: Berend J. Drijber, and P.                    for by that Regulation;
Glazener) — application for a declaration that Commission
Decision 92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                   2. dismisses the application as unfounded in so far as it
(IV/31.572 and 32.571 — Building and Construction                          seeks damages;
Industry in the Netherlands (2 ) is non-existent or,
alternatively, for a declaration that it is void — the Court of       3 . orders the applicants to pay their own costs and jointly
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen,                  and severally to bear the costs incurred by the
President of the Chamber, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf, K.                  Council;
Lenaerts and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung,
gave a judgment on 21 February 1995 , in which it:                    4 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 135 , 14 . 5 . 1993 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 387, 31 . 12 . 1992 , p. 7.
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the application for
     interim measures.
(M OJ No C 142 , 4 . 6 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 92, 7. 4. 1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 March 1995
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-432/93, T-433/93 and T-434/93 :
                                                                      Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld, and Others v.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     Commission of the European Communities C )
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                       (European Social Fund — Decision reducing the amount of
                     of 21 February 1995                              financial assistance — Application for annulment —
in Case T-4 72/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial SA and Others v.            Non-existence — Admissibility — Breach of an essential
             Council of the European Union ( x )                                         procedural requirement)
(Action for annulment — Regulation — Alignment of the                                            ( 95/C 87/20
price of sugar in Spain with the common price — No
compensation for producers ofisoglucose — Admissibility                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— Action for damages — Legislative measure involving
                 choices of economic policy)                          In Joined Cases T-432/93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 : Socurte
                          ( 95/C 87/19                                (Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld ), Quavi
                                                                      ( Revestimentos de Cortiga, Ld), and Stec ( Sociedade
               (Language of the case: English)                        Transformadora di Carnes, Ld), established at Pau
                                                                      Queimado, Portugal, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz
In Case T-472/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial, SA, Levantina               and Antonio Magalhaes Cardoso, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
Agricola Industrial, SA, and Cerestar Iberica, SA, companies          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy
established under Spanish law, represented by Paul                    Harles, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of
Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service           the European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and F. de
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 Rue                 Sousa Fialho ) — application for a declaration that the
Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents: A.             Decision by which the Commission reduced the amount of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 87/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
the European Social Fund's contribution to Project No                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
860012/P1 , relating to vocational training carried out by the                              of 8 March 1995
applicants in 1986, was legally non-existent prior to 10 July        in Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH v. Commission of
1991 and is void since that date and for an order that the
Commission pay the final balance of the Community                                    the European Communities (*)
contribution claimed under Project No 860012/P1 — the                (Fisheries — EEC-Morocco Agreement — Issue oflicences
Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. L.           — Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Relative
Cruz Vilaça, President, H. Kirschner and A.                                      stability — Legitimate expectations)
Kalogeropoulos,        Judges;     J.    Palacio     Gonzalez,                                  ( 95/C 87/22 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
7 March 1995, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . declares void the Commission 's Decision reducing the
    amount of the European Social Fund's contribution to             In Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH, established at
    Project No 860012/P1 , relating to vocational training in        Schenefeld,       Germany,        represented initially       by
    Portugal in 1986;                                                Heinrich-Werner Goltz, then by Rafael Barber-Llorente,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and U.
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       Wölker) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                     Commission's decision refusing to submit the applicant's
3 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.                      request for a fishing licence to the Moroccan authorities in
                                                                     accordance with Annex I to the Agreement on relations in
(M OJ No C 291 , 8 . 11 . 1991 .                                     the sea fisheries sector between the European Economic
                                                                     Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as approved by
                                                                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2054/88 of 23 June 1988 (2 )
                                                                     and by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3954/92 of
                                                                     19 December 1992 ( 3 ) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
                                                                     Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges, H. Jung,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in which
                       of 8 March 1995                               it:
in Case T-34/93 : Société Générale v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (*)                           1 . dismisses the application;
(Competition — Decision requiring information pursuant
to Article 11 (5) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of                 2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
              reasons — Rights of the defence)
                          ( 95/C 87/21 )                             (!) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .
                                                                     (2) OJ No L 181 , 12. 7. 1988, p. 1 .
               (Language of the case: French)                        (3 ) OJ No L 407, 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 1 .
In Case T-34/93 : Societe Generale, established in Paris,
represented by Robert Saint-Esteben, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and H.                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lehman) — application for (i ) the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 April 1993 relating to a                                       of 13 January 1995
proceeding pursuant to Article 11 ( 5 ) of Regulation No 17          in Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy and Others v.
and (ii ) compensation for the loss which the applicant claims       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
to have suffered as a result of that decision — the Court of                           European Communities (*)
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                        (Partial removal from the register)
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,                                       ( 95/C 87/23
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
I. dismisses the application;
                                                                     In Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy, residing in
2. orders the applicant to bear the costs.                           Timoleague (Ireland ), and the other milk producers whose
                                                                     names appear in an Annex to the order, represented by
                                                                     James O'Reilly SC, of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa
(!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .                                     Watson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver
                                                                     Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-200/02, Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Late establishment of staff report — Claim for annulment — Claim for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/26

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-200/02, Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Late establishment of staff report - Claim for annulment - Claim for damages - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 262/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-200/02, Vassilios Tsarnavas, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Brussels (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting in part the applicant's complaint and claim for damages of EUR 12 500 as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered because of the delay in establishing his staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, E. Martins Ribeiro and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-489/12: Action brought on 8 November 2012 — Planet v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/55

         Action brought on 8 November 2012 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-489/12)
   2013/C 26/111
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet AE, a public limited consultancy company (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the European Commission, by disallowing personnel costs for the applicant’s high ranking staff, infringed the ONTOGOV, FIT and RACWeb contracts and that the personnel costs submitted to the Commission in respect of the abovementioned contracts for the applicant’s high ranking staff, amounting to EUR 547 653,42 are consequently eligible costs and ought not to be repaid by the applicant to the Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the Commission’s liability under the following contracts: (a) No 507237 for completion of the project ‘Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, (b) No 027090 for completion of the project ‘Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and (c) No 045101 for completion of the project ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. Specifically, the applicant claims that, although it performed its contractual obligations fully, properly and very successfully, the Commission, contrary to the above mentioned contracts and the rules governing audit procedure, disallowed the applicant’s personnel costs which relate to its three high ranking staff.
   More particularly, the applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action:

               First, the applicant maintains that in no way did it infringe its contractual obligations concerning personnel costs, since (a) the personnel costs for the applicant’s three high ranking staff meet all the conditions of eligibility, in accordance with the terms of the contracts at issue, and (b) in no way do the contracts prohibit the participation of high ranking staff in the funded projects.

               Secondly, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in breach of its contractual obligations in the audit procedure, since (a) the Commission’s audit was conducted in breach of Greek and International Standards on Auditing, (b) the Commission’s request for the production of documentation which Planet was under no obligation to preserve is contrary to the contracts at issue and is an attempt to effect a retrospective unilateral alteration of Planet’s contractual obligations and (c) the conclusions of the audit at issue are incompatible with the conclusions of previous audits by the Commission at Planet.


title: Case C-388/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen
   (Case C-388/15)
   (2015/C 354/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle

      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

      Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

      Question referred

   The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.
   Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-161/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on  24 March 2006  — Skoma-Lux, s.r.o. v Celní ředitelství Olomouc

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě lodged on 24 March 2006 — Skoma-Lux, s.r.o. v Celní ředitelství Olomouc
   (Case C-161/06)
   (2006/C 121/15)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skoma-Lux, s.r.o.

      Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc
   Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, on the basis of which the Czech Republic became a Member State of the European Union from 1 May 2004, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may apply against an individual a regulation which at the time of its application has not been properly published in the Official Journal in the official language of that Member State?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the unenforceability of the regulation concerned against an individual a question of the interpretation or of the validity of Community law within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

               3.

               Should the Court of Justice conclude that the present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of a Community act within the meaning of the judgment in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, is Regulation No 2454/93 invalid in relation to the applicant and its dispute with the customs authorities of the Czech Republic on the ground of the absence of proper publication in the Official Journal of the EU in accordance with Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession?


title: Case C-63/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-63/12)
   2012/C 118/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto; (1)

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises two grounds of complaint in relation to Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.
   The first ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adopt the adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants, as proposed by the Commission on 24 November 2011, thereby infringing the method governing that adjustment for a period of eight years ending on 31 December 2012. By that ground of complaint, the Commission’s primary plea in law claims that the Council has misused its power and exceeded the limits of that power, and its alternative plea in law is that the Council has infringed the conditions for the application of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The primary plea in law concerns the fact that the Council has in fact itself applied Article 10, but in breach of the required institutional conditions; the Council has thereby infringed, first, Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and, second, Articles 3 and 10 of Annex XI. By the alternative plea in law, the Commission argues that, in any event, the substantive conditions for the application of Article 10 were not met in 2011, as is clear moreover from the two economic reports which the Commission submitted to the Council at the latter’s request. The Commission also considers that Council failed properly to state reasons for its decision.
   The second ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adjust the correction coefficients which must be applied to the remuneration and pensions, according to the various places of employment or residence of the persons concerned. The first plea in law within that complaint is that that refusal is contrary to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Commission’s second plea in law is that that refusal lacks any statement of reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 341, p.54


title: Case C-379/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi
   (Case C-379/11)
   2011/C 298/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l

      Defendant: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

      Question referred

   Is the first subparagraph of Article L.541-1 of the Luxembourg Labour Code compatible with Union law, and more particularly Articles 21 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it reserves the right to reimbursement of part employer part employee social security contributions upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years, be they indemnified or not, to private sector employers on condition that the unemployed persons be registered as work seekers with a placement office of the Luxembourg employment administration for at least one month, while employers who hire unemployed persons registered as work seekers with corresponding foreign bodies do not benefit from that measure?


title: Case C-677/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-299/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/8

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-299/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-677/15 P)
   (2016/C 090/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: N. Bambara, agent, P. Wytinck, B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               In principal

                           —

                           Annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in so far as it holds that the award decision is vitiated by various instances of substantive unlawful conduct, including a breach of the principles of equal opportunities and transparency, manifest errors of assessment and several failures to state reasons (point 1 of the operative part of the Contested Judgment), and in so far as it orders the European Union to pay damages to European Dynamics Luxembourg for loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract (point 2 of the operative part of the Contested Judgment),

                           —

                           reject the Application for annulment of the contested award decision and the request for damages as brought forward by the Applicant in first instance;

               —

               Subsidiary order, annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in so far as it holds that the award decision is vitiated by various instances of substantive unlawful conduct, including a breach of the principles of equal opportunities and transparency, manifest errors of assessment and several failures to state reasons, and in so far as it orders the European Union to pay damages to European Dynamics Luxembourg for loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract, and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Secondary subsidiary order, annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in so far as it orders the European Union to pay damages to European Dynamics Luxembourg for loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract, and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the Applicants in first instance to pay the entire costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appeal is based on four main grounds of appeal, notably that: 1) the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the principles of equal opportunities and transparency and has violated its duty to state reasons as laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, 2) the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the test regarding manifest errors of assessment, 3) the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 100 (2) of the General Financial Regulation (1) read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and 4) the General Court erred in law by the award for damages on the basis of the loss of opportunity.

               2.

                  In the First Ground of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not assessing and establishing whether the introduction of weighting criteria for the sub-criteria of the first technical award criteria which were not communicated to the tenderers before the submission of their tenders 1) altered the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents or the contract notice, 2) contained elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation, or 3) were adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers. In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the Appellant also demonstrates that the General Court has violated its duty to state reasons as imposed by Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice as it does not provide any reason why it considers that the introduction of unannounced weighting factors for the sub-criteria used in the first award criterion had a detrimental effect on the chances of the applicants in first instance to be ranked in first or second place in the cascade for the disputed Call for Tenders.

               3.

                  In the Second Ground of Appeal, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by not examining whether the established manifest errors of assessment made by the evaluation committee in the evaluation of European Dynamics’ tender for the first and second award criterion could have had an impact on the final outcome of the contested award decision. The Appellant points out the General Court is required to examine whether the established manifest errors of assessment would lead to a different outcome for the award procedure on two accounts. First, the General Court has to examine whether, if those manifest errors of assessment had not been committed, the rejected tenderer would have obtained sufficient points to be ranked higher in the cascade. Second, the General Court needs to examine whether the established manifest errors have an effect on the score awarded for a given (sub-)criterion in case there are several other reasons (which are not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment) which equally support the scores awarded.

               4.

                  In the Third Ground of Appeal, the Appellant puts forward that the General Court erred in law by examining each and every comment made by the evaluation committee in isolation and not in there broader context, and as such applied a stricter test regarding the duty to state reasons as the one that follows from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice. In addition, the General Court erred in law by not examining whether the other reasons (which are not vitiated by a failure to state reasons) put forward by OHIM to justify the scores awarded for the first award criterion, could not still be sufficient to confirm the validity of the score awarded. For that reason the General Court erred in law in annulling the contested decision on the grounds of a violation of Article 100 (2) General Financial Regulation read in conjunction with Article 296 TFEU.

               5.

                  In the Fourth Ground of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in awarding damages to the first applicant in first instance as one of the cumulative conditions for incurring non-contractual liability of EU institutions (i.e. the presence of unlawful conduct) has not been demonstrated. In subsidiary order, the Appellant submits that, even if the Application for annulment of OHIM would only succeed on its first ground of appeal, the contested judgment should still be annulled insofar as it imposes the obligation to pay damages as in that case the existence of a causal link between the remaining unlawful conduct (manifest error of assessment and failure to state reasons) and the alleged harm is not demonstrated. In more subsidiary order, the Appellant asks that the judgment should be annulled on the ground of a contradiction between the considerations of the contested judgment and the second indent of the operative part of the contested judgment. In most subsidiary order, the Appellant points out that, in any event, the operative part of the contested judgment contains a material error as it orders the European Union instead of OHIM to compensate European Dynamics Luxembourg for the loss of opportunity.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

      OJ L 298, p. 1


title: Removal from the register of Case T-555/93

text:
 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-10/01: Lichtwer Pharma AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)

text:
29.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 289/23
L. Levi, avocats, against the Court of Justice of the European              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                                                 INSTANCE
ment of the decision of the appointing authority of 11 March
2002 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the adminis-
trator’s post referred to in notice of vacancy CJ 62/01 — the                                         of 1 August 2003
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 Septem-                in Case T-198/01 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
ber 2003 in which it:                                                               v Commission of the European Communities
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                           to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                            up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
(1) OJ C 305 of 7 December 2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 289/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                            In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
in Case T-10/01: Lichtwer Pharma AG v Office for                            established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                  Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                            Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition
                                                                            U. Soltész, lawyer — application for extension of the suspen-
              withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            sion of the operation, ordered in this case by order of the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2002, of
                          (2003/C 289/49)                                   Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June
                                                                            2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische
                   (Language of the case: German)                           Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2000 L 62, p. 30) — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
                                                                            1 August 2003 in which he:
In Case T-10/01, Lichtwer Pharma AG, established in Berlin,
represented by H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein,                   1.    Suspends the operation until 17 February 2004 of Article 2 of
lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                        Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Walbroeck and                        State aid C 44/2001 implemented by Germany for Technische
G. Schneider), Biofarma, formerly Orsem SARL, established in                      Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by V. Gil Vega and
A. Ruiz López, lawyers: Appeal against the decision of the
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                   2.    Makes that suspension subject to the following conditions: first,
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 November                       that the four conditions laid down in the second point of the
2000 (Case R 586/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings                       operative part of the order made today in Case T-378/02 R
between Lichtwer Pharma AG and Biofarma, the Court of First                       should be satisfied by the applicant, especially as regards the
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,                             dates fixed therein; second, that the applicant should before
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                31 December 2003 at the latest repay to the Bundesanstalt für
has made an order on 3 July 2003, the operative part of which                     Vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben an additional sum of
is as follows:                                                                    EUR 256 000 and that it should lodge at the Registry of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance and at the Commission, within one week
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.                                             of making that payment, and by 7 January 2004 at the latest,
                                                                                written proof of that payment; third, that it should lodge at the
2.    The applicant and the intervener must be ordered to bear their              Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission,
      own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.                   by 6 February 2004 at the latest, a detailed report drawn up
                                                                                by an accountant on its financial situation at 31 December
                                                                                2003 and, in particular, the additional sum which it would be
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                         able to pay by 30 June 2004 at the latest, if judgment in the
                                                                                case in the main proceedings should not have been given by
                                                                                that lastmentioned date.


title: Case T-492/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2008 — Jungbunzlauer and Others v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2008 — Jungbunzlauer and Others v Commission
   (Case T-492/04) (1)

   (2008/C 223/102)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-176/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd v Bundesminister für Finanzen (Article 56 TFEU — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not equivalent to that ensured at national level — Justification — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd v Bundesminister für Finanzen
   (Case C-176/11) (1)

   (Article 56 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not equivalent to that ensured at national level - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality)
   2012/C 287/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Finanzen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verfassungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU et seq. — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising in its territory of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not considered equivalent to the level of protection ensured at national level

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the advertising in that State of casinos located in another Member State only where the legal provisions for the protection of gamblers adopted in that other Member State provide guarantees that are in essence equivalent to those of the corresponding legal provisions in force in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-333/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Austrian Power Grid and Voralberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/36

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Austrian Power Grid and Voralberger Übertragungsnetz v ACER
   (Case T-333/17)
   (2017/C 249/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and Voralberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch and S. Huber, lawyers)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators of 17 March 2017, Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) in its entirety and annul the following parts and provision of the Decision of ACER No 06/2016 of 17 November 2016 on the Electricity Transmission System Operators’ proposal for the determination of the Capacity Calculation Regions:

                           i.

                           Article 1 of the contested decision in conjunction with

                                       —

                                       Annex I, Article 1, para. 1, letter c;

                                       —

                                       the word ‘also’ and the text block ‘for the purposes of capacity allocation on the affected bidding zone borders until the requirements described in Article 5(3) of this document are fulfilled’ in Annex I, Article 2, para. 2, letter e;

                           ii.

                           Article 2 of the contested decision;

                           iii.

                           Annex IV;

                           iv.

                           Annex V;

                  in eventu

               requesting that the contested decision shall be annulled in its entirety and to refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               condemn the defendant to the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in considering ACER competent to change the Transmission System Operators’ (‘TSOs’) proposal.
               The applicants claim the contested decision unlawful since the Board of Appeal omitted to address that ACER was not competent to materially change the All TSOs’ Proposal for Capacity Calculation Regions (‘CCR’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred by assuming that ACER was competent to disregard E-Control’s request for amendment.
               According to the applicants, the application submitted by the Austrian national regulatory authority (‘NRA’), E-Control, requesting that the All TSOs CCR Draft be amended, was not dealt with in conformity with the procedure provided under Article 9(12) of the CACM Regulation (1). By approving this unlawful application of Article 9 CACM Regulation, so the applicants claim, the Board of Appeal committed an error in law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred by assuming that ACER is competent to determine bidding zones in the course of a procedure according to Article 15 of the CACM Regulation.
               According to the applicants, all available methods of interpretation as well as the case-law and the authentic interpretation of the Commission clearly support the conclusion that the splitting of an existing bidding zone and an obligation to introduce a capacity allocation mechanism may not be based on Article 15 of the CACM Regulation. By contrast, so the applicants claim, the interpretation advocated by ACER and supported by the Board of Appeal is based on an incorrect and incomplete interpretation of the law and the facts of the case.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ‘structural congestion’ and in its scope of review.
               According to the applicants, in the CCR decision, ACER provided an interpretation of structural congestion that is neither grounded in the CACM Regulation, nor in Regulation (EC) No. 714/2009 (2) in order to legitimize its assumption that the German-Austrian border is structurally congested. The applicants put forward that by de facto accepting this wrong interpretation of the applicable law, the Board of Appeal enacted a substantively unlawful decision. Moreover, so the applicants claim, by accepting ACER’s assumption regarding the presence of a structural congestion at the German-Austrian interconnection, the Board of Appeal erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the applicants and infringed its duty to fully assess the facts of the matter and to state reason.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in considering the splitting of the German-Austrian bidding zone proportional.
               The applicants claim that they have clearly demonstrated that the splitting of the German-Austrian bidding zone ordered by ACER constitutes disproportionate interference with their rights. However, so the applicants claim, the Board of Appeal has entirely failed to address the arguments put forward by them in their appeals. Moreover, so the applicants claim, the Board of Appeal erred in considering the bidding zone splitting and the introduction of a capacity allocation mechanism as appropriate.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the introduction of a German-Austrian bidding zone does not restrict the fundamental freedoms.
               According to the applicants, they demonstrated that, contrary to the conclusion drawn by ACER and the Board of Appeal, the introduction of a CAM at the German-Austrian border restricts the free movement of goods enshrined in Articles 34 and 35 TFEU and the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU). The applicants put forward that the Board of Appeal, in a very short and unfounded manner, rejected their arguments and stated that quantitative restrictions on bilateral energy trade does not face any reservations in the light of the fundamental freedoms. According to the applicants, the Board of Appeal insofar infringed EU primary law and its duty to state adequate reasons.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred when considering the Agency’s CCR decision in compliance with the procedural rules.
               The applicants put forward that they established in their appeals that the Agency’s CCR decision is partially flawed for the following reasons: (i) the Agency exceeded its competence by declaring that the non-binding ACER Opinion 09/2015, issued in September 2015, has binding effect, and, as this Opinion did not form part of the consultation procedure, the applicants’ procedural rights were fundamentally violated by ACER; (ii) the Agency’s file for the preparation of the CCR decision lacked technical studies, analysis and in-depth assessments: either the Agency provided the applicants with significantly incomplete information and, by doing so, violated the applicants’ right to full access to the case file according to Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the Agency did not at all prepare and/or consult technical expertise and analyses in order to put its CCR-decision on a factually sound basis; (iii) the Agency did not take into account the mandatory requirements for a bidding zone modification as set out in Article 33 of the CACM Regulation; (iv) the CCR decision is based on facts that have not been sufficiently clarified and the Agency failed to make observations.
               According to the applicants, despite these significant violations of statutory procedural rules by ACER, the Board of Appeal, again in a very general way, confirmed the legitimacy of the CCR decision and therefore acted unlawfully.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 8).


title: Action brought on 4 April 1997 by G. Van Dyck against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-87/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/23
Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1997                 Action brought on 4 April 1997 by G. Van Dyck against
by Horeca-Wallonie, whose registered office is at Namur                     the Commission of the European Communities
( Belgium ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                                           ( Case T-87/97)
Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne and Alain Bernard,
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/47)
of the Liege Bar ( Belgium ), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneou, 15                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Avenue du Bois .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 April 1997
                                                                     by G. Van Dyck, residing in Wuustwezel ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by G. Vandersanden and M.-A. Marx, of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     Union contained in the letter of 24 September 1996              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
     addressed to the Belgian State as represented by its
     Minister for Foreign Affairs,                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     — declare the present application admissible and well
                                                                         founded,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — consequently, annul the decision of the appointing
                                                                         authority of 21 June 1996 refusing to reconsider the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      applicant's grading in accordance with Article 31 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be
                                                                         necessary, annul the decision of 27 December 1996
The Federation of Flotel, Restaurant and Cafe Proprietors                rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
of Wallonia challenges the Commission's declaration that                 9 September 1996,
a draft decree of the Wallonia Government concerning
social tourism in Wallonia which provides that 'recognized           — order the European Commission to take all
associations' within the meaning of Article 2 thereof may                appropriate steps to comply with the judgment to be
be entitled to subsidies while reserving up to 49 % of the               delivered in the case, so as to provide for the
actual occupation of each hotel to guests who do not fall                applicant's remuneration to be increased retroactively
within the scope of social tourism is compatible with the                and for the payment of default interest at the rate of
common market and its corresponding refusal to initiate                  8 % from the date of the applicant's entry into service,
the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2 ) of the EC
Treaty. The applicant points out in this regard that, in its         — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
present form, the wording of the draft allows social
tourism centres to compete directly and unfairly with                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
private sector undertakings.
                                                                     — Infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                         The Commission failed, when fixing the applicant's
It claims that the figures referred to by the Commission in
                                                                         grade, to take into account the special circumstances
the letter containing the contested decision came solely
                                                                         prevailing — namely, the applicant's training and
from the Wallonia authority and do not correspond to the
facts and are inaccurate .                                               experience — and therefore failed to adopt a grading
                                                                         decision within the meaning of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
The applicant considers that it should be allowed to                 — Breach of the principle of non-discrimination
submit a much more accurate analysis of the level of
planned subsidy, which would be in addition to the                       The Commission failed to observe the principle of
financial and fiscal structural advantages which social                  non-discrimination, in that it took account, when
tourism centres already enjoy as non-profit-making                       appointing members of the temporary staff to
associations .
                                                                         established posts, of the professional experience which
                                                                         those staff members had acquired at the time of their
                                                                         assignment to temporary posts, but failed to have
It therefore requests that the procedure for examining                   regard to the experience and training of probationer
State aid should be initiated on the basis of Article 93 ( 2 )           officials .
of the Treaty so that the interested parties, including the
applicant, can submit observations on the basis of a file            — Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
made available to it and containing relevant information,                interests of officials and of the principle of sound
in particular statistical and financial information .                    administration
                                                                         By replying in French to the complaint lodged in the
                                                                         Dutch language, and by failing to inform the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
    applicant, upon his appointment, of the implications              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations, the
    Commission breached the abovementioned principles.                — annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Henri Jacobs against
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                         ( Case T-88/97)
                           ( 97/C 166/48                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T- 16/97 ( M.
by Henri Jacobs, residing at Steenokkerzeel ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an           O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Martine Frix against
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996                                the Commission of the European Communities
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                ( Case T-90/97)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
    (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                                  ( 97/C 166/50)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                      (Language of the case: French)
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                      by Martine Frix, residing at Rosieres ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                      Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T- 16/9 7 ( M.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
H OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 18 July 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Mikael Barfod against               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
       the Commission of the European Communities                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                         ( Case T-89/97 )                                   expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                             97/C 166/49 )
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T-l 6/97 (>).
by Mikael Barfod, residing at Rhode-Saint-Genese
(Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels            t 1 ) OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-111/99 P: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities and Others (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 200/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 January 2001
                        of 19 January 2001
                                                                           in Case C-111/99 P: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities and Others (1)
in Case C-391/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano):
                                                                           (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings —
Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale
                                                                            Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/58)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction
                        — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2001/C 200/57)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case C-111/99 P: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, established in
                                                                           Meitingen-Herbertshofen (Germany), represented by R. Bier-
                                                                           wagen, Rechtsanwalt — appeal against the judgment delivered
                                                                           on 21 January 1999 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Compo-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     sition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          ties in Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue
                                                                           Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v
                                                                           Commission, seeking to have that judgment, in so far as it
                                                                           concerns the appellant, set aside, the other parties to the
In Case C-391/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
EC from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano            (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and P.F. Nemitz), Federal Republic of
(Bari District Court, Rutigliano Division) for a preliminary               Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski),
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Giovanni Colapietro and Ispettorato Generale Repressione                   Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, established in Sulzbach-
Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole — on the                       Rosenberg (Germany) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
Community rules on compulsory distillation — the Court                     of A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                     P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric            Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                  an order on 25 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 January              follows:
2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    The appeal is dismissed.
There is no need to give a reply to the questions submitted by the         2.    Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of
19 September 2000.
                                                                           3.    Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case F-17/09: Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Meister v OHIM

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Meister v OHIM
   (Case F-17/09)
   2009/C 113/95
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herbert E. Meister (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the dismissal of the applicant’s complaint regarding the calculation of promotion points for the year 2008 and application for damages for infringement of the principles of proper personnel management

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the negative decision of the president of 20 December 2008 taken in relation to the internal complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of 20 August 2008;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant, of an amount to be determined by the court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-229/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (VOGUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VOGUE — Earlier Community word mark VOGUE — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the goods — Identity or similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Vagueness of the trade mark application — Article 26(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (VOGUE)
   (Case T-229/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VOGUE - Earlier Community word mark VOGUE - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods - Identity or similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Vagueness of the trade mark application - Article 26(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Partial refusal to register))
   2014/C 112/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (case R 1170/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Eduardo López Cabré and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (case R 1170/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Eduardo López Cabré and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., in so far as it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision of 18 March 2011 upholding the opposition for accessories in Class 18 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claim for annulment of the decision referred to at paragraph 1 of the operative part.

               3.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for the opposition to be upheld solely in relation to umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols.

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case T-337/99: Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 63/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA                       Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-336/99)                                                         (Case T-337/99)
                         (2000/C 63/55)                                                          (2000/C 63/56)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA, of Düsseldorf (Ger-                    26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA, of Düsseldorf (Ger-
many), represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian             many), represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian
Osterrieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Pünder, Volhard, Weber             Osterrieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Pünder, Volhard, Weber
& Axter, Düsseldorf (Germany), with an address for service in           & Axter, Düsseldorf (Germany), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the decision adopted on 21 September 1999 by the              (1) annul the decision adopted on 21 September 1999 by the
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings (R                        the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings (R
    71/1999-3) concerning Community trade mark regis-                       73/1999-3) concerning Community trade mark regis-
    tration application No 703 231;                                         tration application No 703 215;
(2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market           (2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    to pay the costs.                                                       to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Three-dimensional mark using              The trade mark con-           Three-dimensional mark using
cerned:                       the colours white and green —             cerned:                       the colours white and red —
                              application No 703 231                                                  application No 703 215
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-           Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent in tablet form              cerned:                       ing detergent in tablet form
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the            Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                 Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Misuse        of     discretionary                                    — Misuse        of    discretionary
                                  powers                                                                  powers
                              — Infringement of procedural                                            — Infringement of procedural
                                  law                                                                     law


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .