# Official Journal C 340/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.340.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 340 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5419 November 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2011.340.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 340

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5419 November 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2011/C 340/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 331, 12.11.2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2011/C 340/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 331, 12.11.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2011/C 340/02 | Case C-520/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — European market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons) | 2 |
| 2011/C 340/03 | Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons) | 2 |
| 2011/C 340/04 | Case C-82/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 73/239/EEC — Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 — Directive 92/49/EEC — Articles 22 and 23 — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Amendment of statutes of an insurance body as regards its capacity — Non-application of the European Union insurance legislation in respect of insurance other than life assurance) | 3 |
| 2011/C 340/05 | Case C-187/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Turkish national — Residence permit — Family reunification — Separation of the partners — Withdrawal of the residence permit — Retroactive effect) | 3 |
| 2011/C 340/06 | Case C-387/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds — Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed — Evidence provided by way of a tax representative — National financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives) | 4 |
| 2011/C 340/07 | Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. zoo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Refusal to register signs 350, 250, 150, 222, 333 and 555 as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Obligation on OHIM to take account of its earlier decision-making practice) | 4 |
| 2011/C 340/08 | Case C-56/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative marks 100 and 300 — Refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 38(2) — Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for) | 5 |
| 2011/C 340/09 | Case C-521/10 P: Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition — Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations) | 5 |
| 2011/C 340/10 | Case C-144/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility) | 5 |
| 2011/C 340/11 | Case C-421/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission | 6 |
| 2011/C 340/12 | Case C-433/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 August 2011 — SKP v Kveta Polhošová | 7 |
| 2011/C 340/13 | Case C-435/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH | 8 |
| 2011/C 340/14 | Case C-445/11 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Bavaria NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria NV v European Commission | 8 |
| 2011/C 340/15 | Case C-452/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV v European Commission | 9 |
| 2011/C 340/16 | Case C-453/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 10 |
| 2011/C 340/17 | Case C-461/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm | 10 |
| 2011/C 340/18 | Case C-464/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others | 10 |
| 2011/C 340/19 | Case C-468/11: Action brought on 13 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 11 |
| 2011/C 340/20 | Case C-476/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S | 11 |
| 2011/C 340/21 | Case C-497/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission | 12 |
| 2011/C 340/22 | Case C-508/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2011 by ENI SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 ENI v Commission | 12 |
| 2011/C 340/23 | Case C-511/11 P: Appeal brought on 4 October 2011 by Polimeri Europa SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission | 13 |
| 2011/C 340/24 | Case C-346/10: Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Greece | 14 |
| 2011/C 340/25 | Case C-597/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic | 14 |
| 2011/C 340/26 | Case C-151/11: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel | 14 |
| | General Court |
| 2011/C 340/27 | Case T-11/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Participation in the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Equal treatment — Power of unlimited jurisdiction) | 15 |
| 2011/C 340/28 | Case T-19/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Mindo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor — Applicant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 15 |
| 2011/C 340/29 | Case T-39/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation) | 15 |
| 2011/C 340/30 | Case T-488/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS — Earlier Community word marks GALILEO — Earlier Community figurative mark powered by Galileo — Earlier Community figurative marks GALILEO INTERNATIONAL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)) | 16 |
| 2011/C 340/31 | Case T-508/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Representation of a loudspeaker — Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009)) | 16 |
| 2011/C 340/32 | Case T-118/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES — Earlier national word mark BLOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)) | 17 |
| 2011/C 340/33 | Case T-425/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BLAST — Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks) | 17 |
| 2011/C 340/34 | Case T-526/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PAKI — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/209) | 17 |
| 2011/C 340/35 | Case T-176/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND — Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element seven — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 18 |
| 2011/C 340/36 | Case T-208/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Descriptive mark) | 18 |
| 2011/C 340/37 | Case T-246/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Mechanical speed reducer) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a mechanical speed reducer — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 19 |
| 2011/C 340/38 | Case T-247/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de — Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2011/C 340/39 | Case T-421/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Earlier national word mark ROSALIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2011/C 340/40 | Case T-94/05 RENV II: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Referral back to the General Court after setting aside — No need to adjudicate) | 20 |
| 2011/C 340/41 | Case T-141/05 RENV: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 — Refusal of access — Fresh examination in the course of proceedings — Bringing of a separate action — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 20 |
| 2011/C 340/42 | Case T-195/09: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 20 |
| 2011/C 340/43 | Case T-473/09: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 21 |
| 2011/C 340/44 | Case T-1/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility) | 21 |
| 2011/C 340/45 | Case T-267/10: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Land Wien v Commission (Nuclear power — Application initiating proceedings — Action for annulment — Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks of a nuclear power plant — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2011/C 340/46 | Case T-268/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Actions for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2011/C 340/47 | Case T-343/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 22 |
| 2011/C 340/48 | Case T-346/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility) | 23 |
| 2011/C 340/49 | Case T-193/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Actions for annulment — Inaction by the applicant — No need to adjudicate) | 23 |
| 2011/C 340/50 | Case T-194/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Action for annulment — Inaction of the applicant — No need to adjudicate) | 24 |
| 2011/C 340/51 | Case T-317/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament | 24 |
| 2011/C 340/52 | Case T-461/11: Action brought on 22 August 2011 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Menard (natura) | 25 |
| 2011/C 340/53 | Case T-478/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission | 25 |
| 2011/C 340/54 | Case T-479/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission | 26 |
| 2011/C 340/55 | Case T-480/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission | 27 |
| 2011/C 340/56 | Case T-486/11: Action brought on 2 September 2011 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission | 27 |
| 2011/C 340/57 | Case T-487/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Banco Privado Português, S.A. and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission | 28 |
| 2011/C 340/58 | Case T-496/11: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — United Kingdom v ECB | 29 |
| 2011/C 340/59 | Case T-502/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles) | 30 |
| 2011/C 340/60 | Case T-504/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE) | 31 |
| 2011/C 340/61 | Case T-509/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Makhlouf v Council | 31 |
| 2011/C 340/62 | Case T-511/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission | 31 |
| 2011/C 340/63 | Case T-368/07: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission | 32 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2011/C 340/64 | Case F-8/05 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion) | 33 |
| 2011/C 340/65 | Case F-23/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor — Loss of promotion points) | 33 |
| 2011/C 340/66 | Case F-29/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points) | 34 |
| 2011/C 340/67 | Case F-31/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points) | 34 |
| 2011/C 340/68 | Case F-45/06 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — De Buggenoms and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision relating to an order for removal from the register following withdrawal from the proceedings — Res judicata — Absence — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion) | 34 |
| 2011/C 340/69 | Case F-103/06 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion) | 35 |
| 2011/C 340/70 | Case F-9/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Change of category under the old Staff Regulations — Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 — Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 — Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment — Applicable multiplier — Loss of promotion points — Claim for compensation) | 35 |
| 2011/C 340/71 | Case F-98/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Sarah Whitehead v European Central Bank (Civil service — Staff of the ECB — Annual salary and bonus review — 2008 review — Annual assessment — Criteria for assessment — Staff Committee consultation — Taking account of periods of sick leave — Setting of objectives) | 36 |
| 2011/C 340/72 | Case F-101/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — AA v Commission (Staff cases — Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Classification in grade — Implementation of a judgment — Loss of opportunity) | 36 |
| 2011/C 340/73 | Case F-13/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB (Staff cases — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Assessment — Promotion — Action for damages — Admissibility) | 37 |
| 2011/C 340/74 | Case F-68/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise — Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee — Manifest error of assessment) | 37 |
| 2011/C 340/75 | Case F-117/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Competition — Conditions for admission — Required qualification — Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education — Decisions of the selection board for a competition — Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority) | 37 |
| 2011/C 340/76 | Case F-65/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded) | 38 |
| 2011/C 340/77 | Case F-66/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded) | 38 |
| 2011/C 340/78 | Case F-105/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion exercise — New career structure — Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action manifestly bound to fail) | 38 |
| 2011/C 340/79 | Case F-42/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Prieto v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded) | 39 |
| 2011/C 340/80 | Case F-75/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed) | 39 |
| 2011/C 340/81 | Case F-82/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed) | 40 |
| 2011/C 340/82 | Case F-6/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA (Civil service — Action for damages — Action manifestly inadmissible) | 40 |
| 2011/C 340/83 | Case F-77/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council | 40 |
| 2011/C 340/84 | Case F-81/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA | 41 |
| 2011/C 340/85 | Case F-82/11: Action brought on 17 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Parliament | 41 |
| 2011/C 340/86 | Case F-83/11: Action brought on 26 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 41 |
| 2011/C 340/87 | Case F-84/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice | 42 |
| 2011/C 340/88 | Case F-85/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 42 |
| 2011/C 340/89 | Case F-86/11: Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions | 42 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2011/C 340/02

Case C-520/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — European market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons)

2

2011/C 340/03

Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

2

2011/C 340/04

Case C-82/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 73/239/EEC — Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 — Directive 92/49/EEC — Articles 22 and 23 — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Amendment of statutes of an insurance body as regards its capacity — Non-application of the European Union insurance legislation in respect of insurance other than life assurance)

3

2011/C 340/05

Case C-187/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Turkish national — Residence permit — Family reunification — Separation of the partners — Withdrawal of the residence permit — Retroactive effect)

3

2011/C 340/06

Case C-387/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds — Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed — Evidence provided by way of a tax representative — National financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)

4

2011/C 340/07

Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. zoo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Refusal to register signs 350, 250, 150, 222, 333 and 555 as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Obligation on OHIM to take account of its earlier decision-making practice)

4

2011/C 340/08

Case C-56/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative marks 100 and 300 — Refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 38(2) — Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for)

5

2011/C 340/09

Case C-521/10 P: Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition — Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations)

5

2011/C 340/10

Case C-144/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the factual context of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

5

2011/C 340/11

Case C-421/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission

6

2011/C 340/12

Case C-433/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 August 2011 — SKP v Kveta Polhošová

7

2011/C 340/13

Case C-435/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH

8

2011/C 340/14

Case C-445/11 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Bavaria NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria NV v European Commission

8

2011/C 340/15

Case C-452/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV v European Commission

9

2011/C 340/16

Case C-453/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

10

2011/C 340/17

Case C-461/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

10

2011/C 340/18

Case C-464/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others

10

2011/C 340/19

Case C-468/11: Action brought on 13 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

11

2011/C 340/20

Case C-476/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

11

2011/C 340/21

Case C-497/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

Hellenic Republic

Commission

12

2011/C 340/22

Case C-508/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2011 by ENI SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 ENI v Commission

12

2011/C 340/23

Case C-511/11 P: Appeal brought on 4 October 2011 by Polimeri Europa SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission

13

2011/C 340/24

Case C-346/10: Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Greece

14

2011/C 340/25

Case C-597/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

14

2011/C 340/26

Case C-151/11: Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel

14

General Court

2011/C 340/27

Case T-11/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Participation in the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Equal treatment — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

15

2011/C 340/28

Case T-19/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Mindo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor — Applicant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

15

2011/C 340/29

Case T-39/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation)

15

2011/C 340/30

Case T-488/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS — Earlier Community word marks GALILEO — Earlier Community figurative mark powered by Galileo — Earlier Community figurative marks GALILEO INTERNATIONAL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

16

2011/C 340/31

Case T-508/08: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Representation of a loudspeaker — Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009))

16

2011/C 340/32

Case T-118/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES — Earlier national word mark BLOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

17

2011/C 340/33

Case T-425/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BLAST — Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)

17

2011/C 340/34

Case T-526/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PAKI — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/209)

17

2011/C 340/35

Case T-176/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND — Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element seven — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

18

2011/C 340/36

Case T-208/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Descriptive mark)

18

2011/C 340/37

Case T-246/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Mechanical speed reducer) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a mechanical speed reducer — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

19

2011/C 340/38

Case T-247/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de — Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2011/C 340/39

Case T-421/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Earlier national word mark ROSALIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2011/C 340/40

Case T-94/05 RENV II: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Referral back to the General Court after setting aside — No need to adjudicate)

20

2011/C 340/41

Case T-141/05 RENV: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 — Refusal of access — Fresh examination in the course of proceedings — Bringing of a separate action — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

20

2011/C 340/42

Case T-195/09: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

20

2011/C 340/43

Case T-473/09: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

21

2011/C 340/44

Case T-1/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

21

2011/C 340/45

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

22

2011/C 340/46

Case T-268/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Actions for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

22

2011/C 340/47

Case T-343/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

22

2011/C 340/48

Case T-346/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

23

2011/C 340/49

Case T-193/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Actions for annulment — Inaction by the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

23

2011/C 340/50

Case T-194/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Action for annulment — Inaction of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

24

2011/C 340/51

Case T-317/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament

24

2011/C 340/52

Case T-461/11: Action brought on 22 August 2011 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Menard (natura)

25

2011/C 340/53

Case T-478/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission

25

2011/C 340/54

Case T-479/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission

26

2011/C 340/55

Case T-480/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

27

2011/C 340/56

Case T-486/11: Action brought on 2 September 2011 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission

27

2011/C 340/57

Case T-487/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Banco Privado Português, S.A. and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

28

2011/C 340/58

Case T-496/11: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — United Kingdom v ECB

29

2011/C 340/59

Case T-502/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)

30

2011/C 340/60

Case T-504/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)

31

2011/C 340/61

Case T-509/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

31

2011/C 340/62

Case T-511/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission

31

2011/C 340/63

Case T-368/07: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission

32

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2011/C 340/64

Case F-8/05 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

33

2011/C 340/65

Case F-23/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor — Loss of promotion points)

33

2011/C 340/66

Case F-29/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)

34

2011/C 340/67

Case F-31/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)

34

2011/C 340/68

Case F-45/06 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — De Buggenoms and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision relating to an order for removal from the register following withdrawal from the proceedings — Res judicata — Absence — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

34

2011/C 340/69

Case F-103/06 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

35

2011/C 340/70

Case F-9/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Change of category under the old Staff Regulations — Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 — Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 — Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment — Applicable multiplier — Loss of promotion points — Claim for compensation)

35

2011/C 340/71

Case F-98/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Sarah Whitehead v European Central Bank (Civil service — Staff of the ECB — Annual salary and bonus review — 2008 review — Annual assessment — Criteria for assessment — Staff Committee consultation — Taking account of periods of sick leave — Setting of objectives)

36

2011/C 340/72

Case F-101/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — AA v Commission (Staff cases — Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Classification in grade — Implementation of a judgment — Loss of opportunity)

36

2011/C 340/73

Case F-13/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB (Staff cases — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Assessment — Promotion — Action for damages — Admissibility)

37

2011/C 340/74

Case F-68/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise — Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee — Manifest error of assessment)

37

2011/C 340/75

Case F-117/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Competition — Conditions for admission — Required qualification — Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education — Decisions of the selection board for a competition — Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority)

37

2011/C 340/76

Case F-65/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

38

2011/C 340/77

Case F-66/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

38

2011/C 340/78

Case F-105/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion exercise — New career structure — Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action manifestly bound to fail)

38

2011/C 340/79

Case F-42/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Prieto v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

39

2011/C 340/80

Case F-75/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

39

2011/C 340/81

Case F-82/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

40

2011/C 340/82

Case F-6/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA (Civil service — Action for damages — Action manifestly inadmissible)

40

2011/C 340/83

Case F-77/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council

40

2011/C 340/84

Case F-81/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA

41

2011/C 340/85

Case F-82/11: Action brought on 17 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

41

2011/C 340/86

Case F-83/11: Action brought on 26 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

41

2011/C 340/87

Case F-84/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice

42

2011/C 340/88

Case F-85/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

42

2011/C 340/89

Case F-86/11: Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

42

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/1

---

2011/C 340/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 331, 12.11.2011

Past publications

OJ C 319, 29.10.2011

OJ C 311, 22.10.2011

OJ C 305, 15.10.2011

OJ C 298, 8.10.2011

OJ C 290, 1.10.2011

OJ C 282, 24.9.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Arkema SA v European Commission

(Case C-520/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - European market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 340/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Arkema SA (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Arkema’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringements of the principle of equal treatment and the right to a fair hearing — Failure to have regard to the scope of the guidelines on the method of setting fines

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission

(Case C-521/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 340/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Elf Aquitaine’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, and with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — AMCA), in so far as it imputes the infringement in question to Elf Aquitaine SA and imposes a fine on it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — AMCA), in so far as it imputes the infringement in question to Elf Aquitaine SA and imposes a fine on it;

| 3. | Orders Elf Aquitaine SA and the European Commission each to pay its own costs relating to this appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Elf Aquitaine SA and the European Commission each to pay its own costs relating to this appeal;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-82/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 73/239/EEC - Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 - Directive 92/49/EEC - Articles 22 and 23 - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Amendment of statutes of an insurance body as regards its capacity - Non-application of the European Union insurance legislation in respect of insurance other than life assurance)

2011/C 340/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, E. Regan SC)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3) and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357 (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules and declares:

| 1. | By failing to apply to all insurance undertakings, on a non-discriminatory basis, the European Union insurance legislation in its entirety and particularly Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to apply to all insurance undertakings, on a non-discriminatory basis, the European Union insurance legislation in its entirety and particularly Articles 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 and Articles 22 and 23 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2005/68, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

| 2. | Ireland shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ireland shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-187/10) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Turkish national - Residence permit - Family reunification - Separation of the partners - Withdrawal of the residence permit - Retroactive effect)

2011/C 340/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Baris Unal

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of Turkish nationals — Residence permit granted to a Turkish national to allow him to live with his partner — Separation of the partners not notified to the competent authorities — Withdrawal of the residence permit

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the expiry of the one-year period of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-387/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds - Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed - Evidence provided by way of a tax representative - ‘National’ financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)

2011/C 340/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent.)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. zoo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Joined Cases C-54/10 P and C-55/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal to register signs ‘350’, ‘250’, ‘150’, ‘222’, ‘333’ and ‘555’ as trade marks for periodicals, books and game booklets - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Obligation on OHIM to take account of its earlier decision-making practice)

2011/C 340/07

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed the three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of the word marks 150, 250 and 350 as Community trade marks — Breach of Articles 7(1)(c) and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeals are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeals are dismissed.

| 2. | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-56/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for)

2011/C 340/08

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążwska radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed, |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed,

| 2. | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.05.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/5

---

Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission

(Case C-521/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition - Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations)

2011/C 340/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL (represented by: R. García García, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 7 August 2009 informing the then applicant that the facts in respect of which it had lodged a complaint with the Commission did not permit the conclusion that there had been an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken in respect of its complaint.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/5

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah

(Case C-144/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the factual context of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/10

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Mestre

Criminal proceedings against

Asad Abdallah

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mestre — Direct applicability of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Interpretation of Article 2 of that directive — National legislation providing for a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 to be imposed on a foreign national who unlawfully enters or remains in the national territory, as well as for the possibility for the court to replace that fine with deportation for a period of less than five years, in the case of a criminal conviction.

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy), by decision of 16 March 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.05.2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/6

---

Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission

(Case C-421/11 P)

2011/C 340/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Primarily:








  — | set aside, on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment of 7 June 2001 pf the General Court in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Primarily:

—

set aside, on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment of 7 June 2001 pf the General Court in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

| — | grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court;

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

—

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

| — | in the alternative
  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, as a result of the objective errors in the grounds and the reasons for the judgment (in particular the Court’s treatment of the deterrence factor) of the General Court of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06, and reduce those joint and several fines to EUR 75 562 500 for Elf Aquitaine and EUR 58 500 000 for Total; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative
  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, as a result of the objective errors in the grounds and the reasons for the judgment (in particular the Court’s treatment of the deterrence factor) of the General Court of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06, and reduce those joint and several fines to EUR 75 562 500 for Elf Aquitaine and EUR 58 500 000 for Total;

| — | in the further alternative
  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, in the proportion which the Court deems appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative
  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, in the proportion which the Court deems appropriate;

| — | in the further alternative
  : release Elf Aquitaine and Total from the obligation to pay overdue interest having accrued as from the date of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 to the date of judgment in Case T-217/06 Arkema France and Others v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative
  : release Elf Aquitaine and Total from the obligation to pay overdue interest having accrued as from the date of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 to the date of judgment in Case T-217/06 Arkema France and Others v Commission;

| — | in any event
  , order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine and Total before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event
  , order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine and Total before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants raise six main grounds of appeal and three in the alternative.

By their first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court infringed Article 5 EU in so far as it validated the principle that a parent company is automatically liable for the infringements committed by its subsidiary, applied in the present case by the Commission and justified by the concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Such an approach is incompatible with the principles of conferral and subsidiarity (first part) and the principle of proportionality (second part).

By the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court made a manifestly erroneous interpretation of national law and of the concept of undertaking in that it conferred an imprecise legal value to the principle of autonomy of legal persons, inter alia.

By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim, in essence, that the General Court voluntarily refused to draw consequences from the criminal nature of competition law sanctions and from the new obligations resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In the appellants’ view, the General Court applied the concept of undertaking under EU law abusively and erroneously, in spite of the presumption of autonomy on which national company law is based and of the criminal nature of competition law sanctions. Moreover, the appellants submit that the General Court should have raised, of its own motion, the illegality of the current administrative procedure before the Commission.

By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that their rights of defence have been infringed as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the principles of fairness and equality of arms. The General Court approved the Commission’s use of a probatio diabolica and erred in finding that the autonomy of a subsidiary must be assessed in a general manner in relation to its capital links with its parent company, whereas it should be assessed in relation to its conduct on a given market.

By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants invoke an infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the General Court briefly took note of the rejection of their arguments by the Commission, without providing any analysis of the Commission's arguments (first part). Moreover, they allege errors in law with respect to the Commission’s obligation to state reasons (second part), and criticise the General Court for having substituted its own reasons for those of the Commission (third part).

By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants allege infringement of the principle of sound administration in that the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants, which are parent companies, is higher than the amount inflicted on Arkema, the subsidiary which is liable for the infringement.

By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants criticise the General Court for having erred on a number of points of law in the application of a deterrent multiplier of 3 to the fine. In so doing the General Court infringed the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines (first part) and also the indivisible nature of the basic amount of the fine (second part).

By the eighth ground of appeal, the appellants ask for the amounts of the fines imposed on them to be reduced.

By the ninth and last ground of appeal, the appellants ask for the overdue interest as requested by the Commission pursuant to the implementation of the contested decision and the judgment to be set aside.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovak Republic) lodged on 22 August 2011 — SKP v Kveta Polhošová

(Case C-433/11)

2011/C 340/12

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SKP

Defendant: Kveta Polhošová

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the practice whereby a supplier assigns claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy should be regarded as an unfair commercial practice if the consumer has no guarantee of reimbursement of the costs of legal proceedings arising from a consumer contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the practice whereby a supplier assigns claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy should be regarded as an unfair commercial practice if the consumer has no guarantee of reimbursement of the costs of legal proceedings arising from a consumer contract?

| 2. | If the answer to the preceding question is that the assignment of claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy for recovery purposes is contrary to EU law, in that case:






  A. | Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU be interpreted in such a way that it is not contravened by a court procedure whereby the court, in order to protect consumers, does not apply the statutory fee concession of the trustee in bankruptcy, and that, in such a case, the court does not infringe the right of the trustee in bankruptcy to judicial protection if it discontinues the proceedings if the fee for the application is not paid? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the preceding question is that the assignment of claims against a consumer to an entity in bankruptcy for recovery purposes is contrary to EU law, in that case:

A.

Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU be interpreted in such a way that it is not contravened by a court procedure whereby the court, in order to protect consumers, does not apply the statutory fee concession of the trustee in bankruptcy, and that, in such a case, the court does not infringe the right of the trustee in bankruptcy to judicial protection if it discontinues the proceedings if the fee for the application is not paid?

| B. | Do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) preclude the application of provisions of national law exempting a trustee in bankruptcy from court fees if, in the absence of the unfair commercial practice, the applicant would not be exempt from court fees and the discontinuance of proceedings would prevent the judicial proceedings concerning fulfilment of the unfair term? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (2) preclude the application of provisions of national law exempting a trustee in bankruptcy from court fees if, in the absence of the unfair commercial practice, the applicant would not be exempt from court fees and the discontinuance of proceedings would prevent the judicial proceedings concerning fulfilment of the unfair term?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’); OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH

(Case C-435/11)

2011/C 340/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CHS Tour Services GmbH

Defendant: Team 4 Travel GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive is inadmissible?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’); OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/8

---

Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Bavaria NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria NV v European Commission

(Case C-445/11 P)

2011/C 340/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Bavaria NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, P.W. Schepens and N. Al-Ani, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside paragraphs 202 to 212, 252 to 255, 288, 289, 292 to 295, 306, 307 and 335 of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 June 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraphs 202 to 212, 252 to 255, 288, 289, 292 to 295, 306, 307 and 335 of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 June 2011;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court or annul the decision at issue (1) (in whole or in part); and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court or annul the decision at issue (1) (in whole or in part); and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First
  , the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation of European Union law, specifically Article 101(1) TFEU, infringed the principle of legal certainty and was inconsistent in the reasons for its determination of the starting date of the infringement. The meeting on 27 February 1996 does not constitute part of the infringement and cannot possibly be the starting point for a series of meetings having an anti-competitive object. In so far as the General Court considered that the mere fact that the meeting on 27 February 1996 was called a ‘Catherijne-meeting’ showed that the meeting had an anti-competitive object, this contradicts the decision at issue and the General Court is exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction. The method by which the General Court found that there was a series of meetings with an anti-competitive object cannot be used to determine when the infringement began. Furthermore, the General Court’s reasoning was inconsistent when it determined that a single statement from InBev could suffice to demonstrate the existence of an infringement.

Secondly
  , the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of the principle of equal treatment (and provided an inadequate statement of reasons) in determining that the decision at issue could not be compared with earlier cases in that area, in particular with the Commission’s decision in Case 2003/569 (2) — Interbrew and Alken-Maes. Furthermore, there was no objective justification for the difference in treatment of the undertakings concerned in those cases.

Thirdly
  , the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment, the principle of the non-retroactivity of penalties and the principles of legality and proportionality by failing to reduce the fine imposed on the appellant on account of (the acceptance of) the application of a fines policy that became stricter in 2005 in a situation in which that application was the consequence of what was acknowledged by the General Court to be the excessive duration of the administrative procedure, due entirely to the Commission’s inaction.

Fourthly
  , the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality in that it accepted that the Commission calculated the starting amount of the fine on the basis of the appellant’s turnover including excise duties, as a result of which the actual impact of the appellant on competition was overestimated and the starting amount applied in its regard was set too high.

Fifthly
  , the General Court erred in its interpretation of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration in finding that the appellant did not have to be granted access to InBev’s reply to the objections. The appellant had provided sufficient indications that that document contained exculpatory evidence.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market)

(2)  Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case IV/37.614/F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes) (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1).

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/9

---

Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-240/07 Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV v European Commission

(Case C-452/11 P)

2011/C 340/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV (represented by: T.R. Ottervanger and M.A. de Jong, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, in so far as the appellants’ action was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, in so far as the appellants’ action was dismissed;

| — | annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part in so far as it relates to the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part in so far as it relates to the appellants;

| — | cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellants;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal the appellants rely on six pleas in law:

| | By the first plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission was not obliged to grant access to InBev’s reply to the objections. |
| --- | --- |

By the first plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission was not obliged to grant access to InBev’s reply to the objections.

| | By the second plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in deciding that the Commission was correct in taking the view in relation to the off-trade segment that the conduct of the undertakings concerned could be characterised as a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices. |
| --- | --- |

By the second plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in deciding that the Commission was correct in taking the view in relation to the off-trade segment that the conduct of the undertakings concerned could be characterised as a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices.

| | By the third plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and erred in law in the manner in which it determined the starting date of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

By the third plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and erred in law in the manner in which it determined the starting date of the infringement.

| | By the fourth plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to recognise that an unreasonably large fine was imposed on the appellants exclusively as a result of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure that was caused by the Commission itself. |
| --- | --- |

By the fourth plea
  the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to recognise that an unreasonably large fine was imposed on the appellants exclusively as a result of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure that was caused by the Commission itself.

| | By the fifth plea
  the appellants submit that, particularly by failing — or at least by failing sufficiently — to consider the comparison with the Belgian beer case Interbrew and Alken-Maes, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the Commission had not acted contrary to the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

By the fifth plea
  the appellants submit that, particularly by failing — or at least by failing sufficiently — to consider the comparison with the Belgian beer case Interbrew and Alken-Maes, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the Commission had not acted contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

| | By the sixth plea
  the appellants submit that the 5 % reduction in the fine granted by the General Court on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure is insufficient in view of the particularly large fine imposed on the appellants and the fact that the Commission has no justification for exceeding a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

By the sixth plea
  the appellants submit that the 5 % reduction in the fine granted by the General Court on account of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure is insufficient in view of the particularly large fine imposed on the appellants and the fact that the Commission has no justification for exceeding a reasonable period of time.

---

(1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market)

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/10

---

Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-453/11 P)

2011/C 340/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Timehouse GmbH (represented by: V. Knies, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and annul the decision of the First Board of appeal of 11 March 2010 in Case R 0492/2009-1 and order the respondent to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and annul the decision of the First Board of appeal of 11 March 2010 in Case R 0492/2009-1 and order the respondent to pay the costs;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rehear and decide in the light of the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rehear and decide in the light of the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court of the European Union misapplied the material criterion for assessing distinctive character in accordance with Article 7(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of the overall appearance of the contested trade mark 7 378 888 for the goods to be registered ‘jewellery; clocks and watches and chronometric instruments’, in that it based its decision solely on an examination of the lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark. By drawing conclusions from the (supposed) lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark to the lack of distinctive character of the mark applied for as regards its overall appearance, the contested decision was based on the impermissible presumption/conclusion that a mark whose individual components do not have distinctive character cannot have distinctive character in the combination of the components. Since the mark as a whole has distinctive character, however, the decision of the Board of Appeal that was upheld by the General Court was itself wrong.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

(Case C-461/11)

2011/C 340/17

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

Question referred

Can the requirement for Swedish residence in Paragraph 4 of the skuldsaneringslagen (2006:548) (Law on debt relief) be regarded as being liable to prevent or deter a worker from leaving Sweden to exercise his right to freedom of movement and thus be regarded as running counter to the provision on the freedom of movement for workers within the Union provided for in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others

(Case C-464/11)

2011/C 340/18

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paola Galioto

Defendants: Maria Guccione, Maria Piera Savona, Fabio Savona

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute?

| 2. | Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes?

| 3. | Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/11

---

Action brought on 13 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-468/11)

2011/C 340/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that:






  — | by imposing on undertakings which supply a service or provide a network under the general authorisation a charge intended to finance the Spanish radio and television broadcasting corporation (Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española ‘RTVE’), establishing in that regard a series of conditions and exceptions as well as certain mechanisms for the transfer of surplus income, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Declare that:

—

by imposing on undertakings which supply a service or provide a network under the general authorisation a charge intended to finance the Spanish radio and television broadcasting corporation (Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española ‘RTVE’), establishing in that regard a series of conditions and exceptions as well as certain mechanisms for the transfer of surplus income, and

| — | by failing to give notice in an appropriate manner of its intention to make amendments relating to general authorisations and by failing to allow interested parties, including users and consumers, a sufficient period of time to express their views on the proposed amendments, |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to give notice in an appropriate manner of its intention to make amendments relating to general authorisations and by failing to allow interested parties, including users and consumers, a sufficient period of time to express their views on the proposed amendments,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 14(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive);

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that Article 5 of the RTVE Law is not compatible with the provision made in Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive. Under Article 5 of the RTVE Law, the Spanish authorities have established a charge (which they call a contribution (‘aportación’)), which is levied on gross receipts of operators of electronic communications with a given geographic scope, without paying due regard to the principles and requirements laid down in Article 12 of the Authorisation Directive.

The Commission considers that, in failing to give notice in an appropriate manner of its intention to make amendments relating to general authorisations and by failing to allow interested parties, including users and consumers, a sufficient period of time to express their views on the proposed amendments, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil the obligations laid down by Article 14(1) of the Authorisation Directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

(Case C-476/11)

2011/C 340/20

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen

Defendant: Experian A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as authorisation for the Member States to be able generally to except occupational social security schemes from the prohibition in Article 2 of the directive of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as authorisation for the Member States to be able generally to except occupational social security schemes from the prohibition in Article 2 of the directive of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

| 2. | Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, age-graded pension contributions, implying for example that the employer pays a pension contribution of 6 % for employees under 35, 8 % for employees from 35 to 44 and 10 % for employees over 45, in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, age-graded pension contributions, implying for example that the employer pays a pension contribution of 6 % for employees under 35, 8 % for employees from 35 to 44 and 10 % for employees over 45, in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/12

---

Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case C-497/11 P)

2011/C 340/21

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, and G. Michailopoulos)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic;

| — | uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies.

| 2. | Second plea:
  misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea:
  misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project.

| 3. | Third plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors.

| 4. | Fourth plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea:
  misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy.

| 5. | Fifth plea:
  failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea:
  failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/12

---

Appeal brought on 3 October 2011 by ENI SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-39/07 ENI v Commission

(Case C-508/11 P)

2011/C 340/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: ENI SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti, D. Durante, R. Arras, E. D’Amico, I. Perego, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and, consequently:






  — | set aside in whole or in part the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR); and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and, consequently:

—

set aside in whole or in part the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR); and/or

| — | annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on ENI by the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on ENI by the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR);

| — | in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by ENI in Case T-39/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs, both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-39/07. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs, both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-39/07.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the first ground of appeal, which is subdivided into four parts, ENI claims that the General Court erred in law on a number of points and acted in breach of its obligation to state reasons, and also of the fundamental principles laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR, to the detriment of ENI’s rights of defence. ENI submits that:

| — | the presumption that a parent company has actually exercised decisive influence is not justified in the light of the principles governing the attribution of antitrust liability and the principles governing presumptions, as they have evolved in the case-law of the ECHR; in any event, the General Court failed to rule on the arguments put forward by ENI at first instance concerning the scope of the requirement that decisive influence must actually have been exercised; |
| --- | --- |

—

the presumption that a parent company has actually exercised decisive influence is not justified in the light of the principles governing the attribution of antitrust liability and the principles governing presumptions, as they have evolved in the case-law of the ECHR; in any event, the General Court failed to rule on the arguments put forward by ENI at first instance concerning the scope of the requirement that decisive influence must actually have been exercised;

| — | the evidence adduced by ENI for the purposes of rebutting the presumption of liability was not weighed correctly: the General Court disregarded the rules as developed in the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

the evidence adduced by ENI for the purposes of rebutting the presumption of liability was not weighed correctly: the General Court disregarded the rules as developed in the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court itself;

| — | albeit holding, on the basis of the case-law, that the presumption of liability is relative, the General Court distorted the true scope of that presumption when applying it, thereby requiring ENI to meet a standard of proof to the contrary which was impossible to satisfy and giving rise to the application of rules based on strict liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

albeit holding, on the basis of the case-law, that the presumption of liability is relative, the General Court distorted the true scope of that presumption when applying it, thereby requiring ENI to meet a standard of proof to the contrary which was impossible to satisfy and giving rise to the application of rules based on strict liability;

| — | the General Court found, without stating the reasons for that finding, that it did not have to assess the arguments raised before it by ENI regarding the relevance of the principle of limited liability of companies for the purposes of attributing liability to the parent company by reason of the presumption that it had actually exercised decisive influence, and incorrectly applied the legal criteria derived from the case-law relating to corporate succession in competition law. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court found, without stating the reasons for that finding, that it did not have to assess the arguments raised before it by ENI regarding the relevance of the principle of limited liability of companies for the purposes of attributing liability to the parent company by reason of the presumption that it had actually exercised decisive influence, and incorrectly applied the legal criteria derived from the case-law relating to corporate succession in competition law.

By the second ground of appeal, which is subdivided into two parts, ENI claims that the General Court infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons. In particular, ENI claims that the General Court:

| — | assessed incorrectly the gravity of the infringement for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine, thereby denying — without stating reasons — the relevance of the evidence put forward on that point by ENI and of the arguments put forward regarding the disproportionate nature of the multiplier applied; |
| --- | --- |

—

assessed incorrectly the gravity of the infringement for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine, thereby denying — without stating reasons — the relevance of the evidence put forward on that point by ENI and of the arguments put forward regarding the disproportionate nature of the multiplier applied;

| — | in disregard of the criteria derived from the case-law, based the exclusion of Syndial from the list of addressees of the contested decision on corporate succession, without taking account of the consequences entailed for the maximum amount of fine. |
| --- | --- |

—

in disregard of the criteria derived from the case-law, based the exclusion of Syndial from the list of addressees of the contested decision on corporate succession, without taking account of the consequences entailed for the maximum amount of fine.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/13

---

Appeal brought on 4 October 2011 by Polimeri Europa SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission

(Case C-511/11 P)

2011/C 340/23

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F.M. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in whole or in part the judgment of the General Court in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and, consequently:






  — | set aside in whole or in part Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) (‘the Decision’); and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside in whole or in part the judgment of the General Court in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and, consequently:

—

set aside in whole or in part Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) (‘the Decision’); and/or

| — | annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on Polimeri by the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on Polimeri by the Decision;

| — | in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-59/07. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-59/07.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court made a serious error in law in its understanding of the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 and, as a consequence, based on mistaken premises its rejection of Polimeri’s third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence arising from the divergence between the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 and the Decision as regards the manner in which liability was attributed as between Polimeri and Syndial.

The General Court misapplied the relevant Community case-law in attributing liability for the infringement to Polimeri and excluding Syndial from the list of addressees of the Decision, and failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri.

The General Court misapplied the relevant Community case-law in assessing Polimeri’s claims relating to the discrepancies between the statements made by various employees of the undertakings who had cooperated under the Leniency Notice in respect of certain aspects of the alleged infringement. In disregarding important exculpatory evidence, the General Court failed to conduct a full review of the evidence put forward by the Commission.

The General Court failed to point out that the Commission had made serious errors in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and in categorising as ‘very serious’ the infringement found in the Decision; it also failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri. The General Court failed to conduct a full review of the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri.

The General Court failed to point out that the Commission had made serious errors in the determination of the multiplier, giving insufficient reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri. The General Court also failed to point out that, in determining the multiplier, the Commission had acted in breach of the principle of equal treatment; it also gave insufficient reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in that regard by Polimeri.

The General Court made a serious error in applying the relevant Community case-law for the purposes of assessing the criticisms made by Polimeri regarding the inadmissibility of certain annexes to the application initiating proceedings and failed to give sufficient reasons in that regard. In so doing, the General Court undermined the arguments put forward by Polimeri in its defence against the objections relating to the existence of the cartel and Polimeri’s participation in that cartel, and thereby failed unlawfully to carry out its duty to conduct a full review of the facts alleged by the Commission.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Greece

(Case C-346/10) (1)

2011/C 340/24

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-597/10) (1)

2011/C 340/25

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel

(Case C-151/11) (1)

2011/C 340/26

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.

---

General Court

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission

(Case T-11/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Participation in the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Equal treatment - Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

2011/C 340/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Romana Tabacchi Srl, formerly Romana Tabacchi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G.C. Rizza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and V. Di Bucci, and finally by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Romana Tabacchi Srl had participated in the infringement beyond February 1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Romana Tabacchi Srl had participated in the infringement beyond February 1999;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi at EUR 1 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi at EUR 1 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi in Case T-11/06 R. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi in Case T-11/06 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Mindo v Commission

(Case T-19/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor - Applicant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mindo Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and F. Amato, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, application for a reduction in the fine imposed on Mindo Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | Orders Mindo Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mindo Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission

(Case T-39/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)

2011/C 340/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transcatab SpA (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Amato, subsequently by V. Di Bucci, and lastly by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy); (ii) for a reduction in the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Galileo Sistemas y Servicios (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)

(Case T-488/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ - Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ - Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 340/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño and P. Bullock, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 403/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology, LLC and Galileo Sistemas y Servicios, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Galileo International Technology, LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker)

(Case T-508/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a loudspeaker - Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 340/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bang & Olufsen A/S (Struer, Denmark) (represented: initially by K. Wallberg and subsequently by J. Glaesel, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and G. Schneider, Agents)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2008 (Case R 497/2005-1), concerning an application to register a three-dimensional sign representing a loudspeaker as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bang & Olufsen A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bang & Olufsen A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)

(Case T-118/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES - Earlier national word mark BLOOM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 340/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL (Vigo, Spain); and Bloom Clothes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Míguez Pereira, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Harald Heldmann (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: E. Günther, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2009 (Case R 695/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Harald Heldmann and, on the other, La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders La Sonrisa de Carmen, SL and Bloom Clothes, SL to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Harald Heldmann;

| 3. | Orders Mr Heldmann to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Heldmann to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)

(Case T-425/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BLAST - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)

2011/C 340/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI)

(Case T-526/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PAKI - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/209)

2011/C 340/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PAKI Logistics (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by M. Bergermann, P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and subsequently by F. Penlington, Agents, assisted by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2009 (Case R 1805/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PAKI as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAKI Logistics GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAKI Logistics GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T-176/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND - Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘seven’ - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 340/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seven For All Mankind LLC (Vernon, California, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer, B. Guimberteau, lawyer, M. Choukroun, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven For All Mankind LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders Seven For All Mankind LLC to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Seven For All Mankind LLC to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE)

(Case T-208/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TRUEWHITE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Descriptive mark)

2011/C 340/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cree, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner, and subsequently by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2010 (Case R 985/2009-2) concerning registration of the sign TRUEWHITE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cree, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cree, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Industrias Francisco Ivars v OHIM — Motive (Mechanical speed reducer)

(Case T-246/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a mechanical speed reducer - Earlier Community design - Ground of invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2011/C 340/37

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL (Xeraco, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Motive Srl (Montirone, Italy) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano and J. Mora Granell, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1337/2008-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Motive Srl and Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Francisco Ivars, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de)

(Case T-247/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de - Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 340/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Deutsche Medien Center GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG and Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Medi GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Medi GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders Deutsche Medien Center GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Deutsche Medien Center GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO)

(Case T-421/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO - Earlier national word mark ROSALIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 340/39

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega (Meaño, Spain) (represented by: E. Sánchez-Quiñones González, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: María Constantina Sotelo Ares (Cambados, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission

(Case T-94/05 RENV II) (1)

(State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the General Court after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: P. Spyropoulos, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Mont Parnes Casino’ public contract.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE.

| 3. | Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs.

| 4. | Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-141/05 RENV) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 - Refusal of access - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing of a separate action - Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005, refusing Internationaler Hilfsfonds full access to the file relating to the contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing its request for access to the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing its request for access to the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011.

| 2. | Internationaler Hilfsfonds shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

(Case T-195/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olson, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and S. Schmüser, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 577/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Matkompaniet AB and DF World of Spices GmbH

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/21

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

(Case T-473/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olson, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and S. Schmüser, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2009 (Case R 1023/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Matkompaniet AB and DF World of Spices GmbH

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/21

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

(Case T-1/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and R. Cana, and subsequently by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer, Y. de Vries and M. de Ree, acting as Agents; and European Commission (represented initially by: P. Oliver and G. Wilms, and subsequently by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of ECHA of 7 December 2009 identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | SNF shall bear the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

SNF shall bear the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

| 4. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Land Wien v Commission

(Case T-267/10) (1)

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

2011/C 340/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

(Case T-268/10) (1)

(Actions for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium); and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkila and W. Broere, Agents);

Interveners in support of the defendant: the Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Noort et J. Langer, Agents); and the European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) and including acrylamide in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the Regulation, taken pursuant to Article 59 thereof.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA

(Case T-343/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg); and AB Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Etimine SA and AB Etiproducts Oy shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Etimine SA and AB Etiproducts Oy shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/23

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA

(Case T-346/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/23

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council

(Case T-193/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Actions for annulment - Inaction by the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Jacques André Monoko Daligou (Abidjan), Bruno Walé Ekpo (Abidjan), Félix Tano Kouakou (Abidjan), Hortense Sess (Abidjan) and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents)

Re:

Partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta, Jacques André Monoko Daligou, Bruno Walé Ekpo, Félix Tano Kouakou, Hortense Sess and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta, Jacques André Monoko Daligou, Bruno Walé Ekpo, Félix Tano Kouakou, Hortense Sess and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah are ordered to pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to rule on the applications made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to rule on the applications made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/24

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council

(Case T-194/11) (1)

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Action for annulment - Inaction of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/24

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament

(Case T-317/10 P)

2011/C 340/51

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: L (Luxemburg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.), represented by Audrey Sèbe and Vytautas Sviderskis, lawyers

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament;

| — | uphold, as being well founded in whole or in part, the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold, as being well founded in whole or in part, the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant sets out eight grounds:

| 1. | The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the concept of ‘decision taken in response to the complaint’ (‘décision prise en réponse à la réclamation’). In the view of the appellant, the decision taken on 10 July 2007 by the authority of the European Parliament empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) was incorrectly held to be a new decision dismissing the appellant and setting aside the first dismissal decision, as it did not re-establish the situation which existed before the first decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the concept of ‘decision taken in response to the complaint’ (‘décision prise en réponse à la réclamation’). In the view of the appellant, the decision taken on 10 July 2007 by the authority of the European Parliament empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) was incorrectly held to be a new decision dismissing the appellant and setting aside the first dismissal decision, as it did not re-establish the situation which existed before the first decision was adopted.

| 2. | The second ground of appeal relates to the inadmissibility of the decision of the AECE of 13 February 2008 by which the appellant’s second complaint was rejected, on the ground that the appellant did not receive that decision until 27 February 2008, that is to say, after the appellant had submitted his third application on 25 February 2008. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground of appeal relates to the inadmissibility of the decision of the AECE of 13 February 2008 by which the appellant’s second complaint was rejected, on the ground that the appellant did not receive that decision until 27 February 2008, that is to say, after the appellant had submitted his third application on 25 February 2008.

| 3. | The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the right of defence. In the appellant’s view, the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal that that principle does not apply in the case where a temporary employment contract based on mutual trust has been terminated is contrary to the case-law of the European Union Courts and to the findings of the International Labour Organisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the right of defence. In the appellant’s view, the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal that that principle does not apply in the case where a temporary employment contract based on mutual trust has been terminated is contrary to the case-law of the European Union Courts and to the findings of the International Labour Organisation.

| 4. | The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the consequences of the breach of Article 10 of the Parliament’s internal rules [on the recruitment of officials and other servants] by ruling that the dismissal decision could not be set aside on grounds of breach of the duty of prior notification of the Staff Committee. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the consequences of the breach of Article 10 of the Parliament’s internal rules [on the recruitment of officials and other servants] by ruling that the dismissal decision could not be set aside on grounds of breach of the duty of prior notification of the Staff Committee.

| 5. | The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of impartiality.

| 6. | The sixth ground of appeal alleges breach of the duty to give reasons, as, in the appellant’s view, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision of 10 July 2007. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth ground of appeal alleges breach of the duty to give reasons, as, in the appellant’s view, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision of 10 July 2007.

| 7. | The seventh ground of appeal alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial procedure, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the correctness and seriousness of the grounds of dismissal. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh ground of appeal alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial procedure, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the correctness and seriousness of the grounds of dismissal.

| 8. | The eighth ground of appeal alleges that there was a manifest error of assessment in that the appellant’s dismissal was not based on factual evidence. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The eighth ground of appeal alleges that there was a manifest error of assessment in that the appellant’s dismissal was not based on factual evidence.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/25

---

Action brought on 22 August 2011 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Menard (natura)

(Case T-461/11)

2011/C 340/52

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ernest Menard SA (Bourseul, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present application;

| — | require OHIM to produce in these proceedings the evidence of reputation to which the applicant referred during the appeal procedure in Case R 2454/2010-2 and which is identified in paragraph 39 of the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

require OHIM to produce in these proceedings the evidence of reputation to which the applicant referred during the appeal procedure in Case R 2454/2010-2 and which is identified in paragraph 39 of the application;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 in Case R 2454/2010-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 October 2010 in Case B 1072513; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 in Case R 2454/2010-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 October 2010 in Case B 1072513;

| — | grant full registration to figurative mark No 4 713 368‘natura’, refused by opposition B 1072513 for goods in Class 20; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant full registration to figurative mark No 4 713 368‘natura’, refused by opposition B 1072513 for goods in Class 20;

| — | order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Natura Selection

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 20, 25 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ernest Menard SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in Classes 19 and 20.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) given that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/25

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-478/11)

2011/C 340/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J Gstalter and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN 10/2010 concerning the action taken by the interprofession nationale porcine (French pig and pork producers association) (‘INAPORC’), which is financed by ‘voluntary’ contributions which have been made compulsory (‘CVCs’), levied by INAPORC on the members it represents. The Commission considered the CVCs to be measures constituting State aid compatible with the internal market.

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging that the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TEU was misapplied when the Commission held that the action taken by INAPORC, using income deriving from the CVCs, was imputable to the State and was financed by State resources.

The applicant argues that the action taken by INAPORC, using income deriving from the CVCs, meets the requirements set by the Court of Justice in Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I-7139 if compulsory contributions levied by a body representing undertakings in an economic sector are not to be regarded as State resources which finance action imputable to the State, since:

| — | the action taken by INAPORC is determined by the professional body which represents undertakings in the agricultural sector concerned and is not an instrument for implementing State policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

the action taken by INAPORC is determined by the professional body which represents undertakings in the agricultural sector concerned and is not an instrument for implementing State policy;

| — | the action taken by INAPORC is financed by means of resources collected from undertakings in the sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

the action taken by INAPORC is financed by means of resources collected from undertakings in the sector;

| — | the financing arrangements and the percentage/quantity of the contributions is established within INAPORC without the State intervening in any way; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financing arrangements and the percentage/quantity of the contributions is established within INAPORC without the State intervening in any way;

| — | the contributions have to be used for financing the measure, there being no possibility for the State to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contributions have to be used for financing the measure, there being no possibility for the State to intervene.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/26

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-479/11)

2011/C 340/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 granted by France to the industrial and commercial public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’).

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea, alleging an error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The applicant argues that, when concluding that there was State aid, the Commission did not comply with the rules governing proof in relation to State aid, as regards either the burden of proof or the standard of proof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging an error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The applicant argues that, when concluding that there was State aid, the Commission did not comply with the rules governing proof in relation to State aid, as regards either the burden of proof or the standard of proof.

| 2. | Second plea, divided into four parts, alleging errors of fact and law in so far as the Commission held there to be an implicit unlimited State guarantee in favour of the IFP. The applicant submits that:






  — | an examination of French law does not show there to be a principle that the debts of the IFP are guaranteed by the State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, divided into four parts, alleging errors of fact and law in so far as the Commission held there to be an implicit unlimited State guarantee in favour of the IFP. The applicant submits that:

—

an examination of French law does not show there to be a principle that the debts of the IFP are guaranteed by the State;

| — | the fact that ordinary law procedures regarding receivership and insolvency are not applicable to the IFP does not mean that the creditors of such a body are in a more favourable situation than the creditors of an undertaking subject to commercial law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that ordinary law procedures regarding receivership and insolvency are not applicable to the IFP does not mean that the creditors of such a body are in a more favourable situation than the creditors of an undertaking subject to commercial law;

| — | the mechanisms for putting the State’s liability in issue cannot be likened to the mechanism of an unlimited guarantee; |
| --- | --- |

—

the mechanisms for putting the State’s liability in issue cannot be likened to the mechanism of an unlimited guarantee;

| — | the fact that certain debts connected with the public-service obligations of the IFP may be upheld is not related to the body’s status. |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that certain debts connected with the public-service obligations of the IFP may be upheld is not related to the body’s status.

| 3. | Third plea, divided into two parts, alleging an error in the application of the concept of ‘advantage’ for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as:






  — | the Commission incorrectly concluded that the existence of a guarantee — were it to be established — would create an advantage in favour of the IFP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, divided into two parts, alleging an error in the application of the concept of ‘advantage’ for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as:

—

the Commission incorrectly concluded that the existence of a guarantee — were it to be established — would create an advantage in favour of the IFP;

| — | in the alternative, the Commission misapplied the concept of advantage when it held that the advantage from which it claimed the IFP benefited on account of the guarantee resulting from its status was transferred to its private-law subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, the Commission misapplied the concept of advantage when it held that the advantage from which it claimed the IFP benefited on account of the guarantee resulting from its status was transferred to its private-law subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/27

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

(Case T-480/11)

2011/C 340/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union;

| — | declare it admissible and, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it admissible and,

| — | declare the action well founded, and, consequently,






  — | rule that the Commission did not carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the action well founded, and, consequently,

—

rule that the Commission did not carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access,

| — | rule that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001,

| — | rule that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to documents in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to documents in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

| — | rule that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by reason of its failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by reason of its failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest;

| — | on that basis, annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 30 June 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

on that basis, annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 30 June 2011;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access and, as a result, an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, in so far as the Commission referred to a category of documents (documents pertaining to an audit) rather than to the actual information contained in those documents. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access and, as a result, an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, in so far as the Commission referred to a category of documents (documents pertaining to an audit) rather than to the actual information contained in those documents.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001: (1)







  — | in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would hinder the progress of the audits, whereas (i) the sole purpose of the audit procedure was to check whether or not the costs incurred in performance of a contract were eligible, and (ii) the information in the documents requested is purely factual; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001: (1)

—

in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would hinder the progress of the audits, whereas (i) the sole purpose of the audit procedure was to check whether or not the costs incurred in performance of a contract were eligible, and (ii) the information in the documents requested is purely factual;

| — | in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents requested would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, whereas it was necessary for the applicants to see those documents in order to be able effectively to defend their rights in the context of the audit procedure, in which all parties could set out their views. |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents requested would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, whereas it was necessary for the applicants to see those documents in order to be able effectively to defend their rights in the context of the audit procedure, in which all parties could set out their views.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging disregard of the right of partial access to the documents requested in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by reason of the refusal to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents to which access was sought. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging disregard of the right of partial access to the documents requested in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by reason of the refusal to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents to which access was sought.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest, in so far as it would be in the interest of the public to allow it to verify how the Commission conducts its audit procedures and to inform contractors of the procedures to be established in order to meet the formal requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest, in so far as it would be in the interest of the public to allow it to verify how the Commission conducts its audit procedures and to inform contractors of the procedures to be established in order to meet the formal requirements.

---

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

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/27

---

Action brought on 2 September 2011 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission

(Case T-486/11)

2011/C 340/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telekomunikacja Polska SA (Warsaw, Republic of Poland) (represented by: M. Modzelewska de Raad, P. Paśnik, S. Hautbourg, lawyers, C. Vajda, QC, and A. Howard, barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission Decision C(2011) 4378 final, dated 22 June 2011, in its entirety; alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision C(2011) 4378 final, dated 22 June 2011, in its entirety; alternatively

| — | annul Article 2 of the contested decision in its entirety; or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the contested decision in its entirety; or in the alternative

| — | reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | an error of law and reasoning by failing to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

an error of law and reasoning by failing to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that Article 2 of the contested decision contravenes Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), by determining a criminal charge by an administrative body, namely the Commission, instead of an independent court complying with the guarantees of Article 6; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that Article 2 of the contested decision contravenes Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), by determining a criminal charge by an administrative body, namely the Commission, instead of an independent court complying with the guarantees of Article 6;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that Article 2 is null and void as the Commission failed to respect the applicant’s rights of defence during the administrative procedure by failing to set out its position on aggravating and attenuating circumstances for the calculation of the fine; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that Article 2 is null and void as the Commission failed to respect the applicant’s rights of defence during the administrative procedure by failing to set out its position on aggravating and attenuating circumstances for the calculation of the fine;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, seeking






  — | reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission erred in its assessment of the gravity of the infringement and breached the principle of proportionality when determining the basic amount of the fine:






  (a) | failure to take account of the fact that the infringement involved different practices with different durations and intensities; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, seeking

—

reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission erred in its assessment of the gravity of the infringement and breached the principle of proportionality when determining the basic amount of the fine:

(a)

failure to take account of the fact that the infringement involved different practices with different durations and intensities;

| (b) | errors of assessment in the finding that the infringement had an actual negative impact on competition and consumers in the relevant market. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

errors of assessment in the finding that the infringement had an actual negative impact on competition and consumers in the relevant market.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, seeking






  — | a reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission improperly and unfairly failed to take account of mitigating circumstances:






  (a) | failure to give credit for the compensatory measures undertaken by the applicant in the way of substantial investments to improve the broadband infrastructure in Poland for the benefit of competitors and consumers; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, seeking

—

a reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission improperly and unfairly failed to take account of mitigating circumstances:

(a)

failure to give credit for the compensatory measures undertaken by the applicant in the way of substantial investments to improve the broadband infrastructure in Poland for the benefit of competitors and consumers;

| (b) | failure to recognise the voluntary termination of the infringement; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

failure to recognise the voluntary termination of the infringement;

| (c) | failure to give credit for the commitments offer made by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

failure to give credit for the commitments offer made by the applicant.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/28

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Banco Privado Português, S.A. and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

(Case T-487/11)

2011/C 340/57

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Banco Privado Português, S.A. — em liquidação (‘BPP’) and Massa insolvente do Banco Privado Português, S.A. — em liquidação (‘assets in the insolvency’) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: C. Fernandez, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, T. Mafalda Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos and A. Kéri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision No 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (‘the contested decision’); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision No 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (‘the contested decision’); (1)

| — | Or, alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Or, alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

| — | Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof;

| — | Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as it ordered recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: lack of reasoning:






  — | The Commission did not explain to what extent the grant of the guarantee was likely to affect trade between Member States and consequently distort competition. The method of calculating the amount of the alleged aid is not adequately reasoned. The Commission failed to state reasons — or at least it put forward reasoning that was obscure and/or contained an irreconcilable contradiction — so far as the duration of the alleged aid and hence the calculation of the relevant amount was concerned. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: lack of reasoning:

—

The Commission did not explain to what extent the grant of the guarantee was likely to affect trade between Member States and consequently distort competition. The method of calculating the amount of the alleged aid is not adequately reasoned. The Commission failed to state reasons — or at least it put forward reasoning that was obscure and/or contained an irreconcilable contradiction — so far as the duration of the alleged aid and hence the calculation of the relevant amount was concerned.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU:






  — | The Commission failed to have regard to the fact that the State guarantee granted to BPP was justified under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU concerning State aid ‘to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU:

—

The Commission failed to have regard to the fact that the State guarantee granted to BPP was justified under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU concerning State aid ‘to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’.

| 3. | Third plea in law: manifest error of assessment of the facts and consequently infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU






  — | The Commission applied the law incorrectly to the facts and did not have regard, in particular, to the fact that BPP was no longer trading or that the purpose of the guarantee was exclusively to provide funding to meet certain balance-sheet liabilities predating the grant of the guarantee. The guarantee granted did not confer an advantage on BPP, did not affect trade between Member States, did not distort competition, nor was it likely to produce those effects, and accordingly it could not be regarded as incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: manifest error of assessment of the facts and consequently infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

—

The Commission applied the law incorrectly to the facts and did not have regard, in particular, to the fact that BPP was no longer trading or that the purpose of the guarantee was exclusively to provide funding to meet certain balance-sheet liabilities predating the grant of the guarantee. The guarantee granted did not confer an advantage on BPP, did not affect trade between Member States, did not distort competition, nor was it likely to produce those effects, and accordingly it could not be regarded as incompatible with the internal market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU






  — | The contested decision ordered the alleged aid, which is not incompatible with the internal market, to be recovered on purely procedural grounds. The method of calculating the amount to be recovered did not have regard to the principles laid down by the Commission’s Guidelines. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU

—

The contested decision ordered the alleged aid, which is not incompatible with the internal market, to be recovered on purely procedural grounds. The method of calculating the amount to be recovered did not have regard to the principles laid down by the Commission’s Guidelines.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: infringement of the right to sound administration:






  — | The Commission imposed an exorbitant requirement having no legal basis, in that Portugal must notify the extension of the guarantee in an identical manner to the formal notifications required for new aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: infringement of the right to sound administration:

—

The Commission imposed an exorbitant requirement having no legal basis, in that Portugal must notify the extension of the guarantee in an identical manner to the formal notifications required for new aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations:






  — | The contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations in so far as it orders the recovery of the alleged aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations:

—

The contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations in so far as it orders the recovery of the alleged aid.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to fair treatment:






  — | The contested decision infringes the right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to fair treatment:

—

The contested decision infringes the right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/29

---

Action brought on 15 September 2011 — United Kingdom v ECB

(Case T-496/11)

2011/C 340/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Beal, barrister, and S. Ossowski, Treasury Solicitor)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

Annulment of the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) dated 5 July 2011 (1), in so far as it sets out a location policy to be applied to central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) established in Member States which do not form part of the Eurosystem.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the ECB lacked competence to publish the contested act, either at all or alternatively without recourse to the promulgation of a legislative instrument such as a Regulation, adopted either by the Council or alternatively by the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) itself. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the ECB lacked competence to publish the contested act, either at all or alternatively without recourse to the promulgation of a legislative instrument such as a Regulation, adopted either by the Council or alternatively by the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) itself.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested act either de jure or de facto will impose a residence requirement on central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the Euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. The contested act infringes all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that:






  (a) | CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States, such as the United Kingdom, will be obliged to relocate their centres of administration and control to Member States which are members of the Eurosystem. They will also be obliged to re-incorporate as legal persons recognised in the domestic law of another Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested act either de jure or de facto will impose a residence requirement on central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the Euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. The contested act infringes all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that:

(a)

CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States, such as the United Kingdom, will be obliged to relocate their centres of administration and control to Member States which are members of the Eurosystem. They will also be obliged to re-incorporate as legal persons recognised in the domestic law of another Member State;

| (b) | in the event that such CCPs do not relocate as required, they will be precluded from access to the financial markets in the Eurosystem Member States, either on the same terms as CCPs established in those territories, or at all; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in the event that such CCPs do not relocate as required, they will be precluded from access to the financial markets in the Eurosystem Member States, either on the same terms as CCPs established in those territories, or at all;

| (c) | such non-resident CCPs will not be entitled to facilities offered by the ECB or the National Central Banks (‘NCBs’) of the Eurosystem, either on the same terms, or at all; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

such non-resident CCPs will not be entitled to facilities offered by the ECB or the National Central Banks (‘NCBs’) of the Eurosystem, either on the same terms, or at all;

| (d) | as a result, the ability of such CCPs to offer clearing or settlement services in the Euro currency to customers in the Union will be restricted or even prohibited in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

as a result, the ability of such CCPs to offer clearing or settlement services in the Euro currency to customers in the Union will be restricted or even prohibited in its entirety.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested act infringes Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 106 TFEU and Article 13 TEU, since:






  (a) | it effectively requires all clearing operations proceeding in the Euro currency exceeding a certain level to be conducted by CCPs established in a Euro area Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested act infringes Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 106 TFEU and Article 13 TEU, since:

(a)

it effectively requires all clearing operations proceeding in the Euro currency exceeding a certain level to be conducted by CCPs established in a Euro area Member State;

| (b) | it effectively directs Euro area NCBs not to supply Euro currency reserves to CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States if they exceed the thresholds set in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

it effectively directs Euro area NCBs not to supply Euro currency reserves to CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States if they exceed the thresholds set in the decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | that the requirement for CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States to adopt a different corporate personality and domicile amounts to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. It also offends the general EU principle of equality, since CCPs established in different Member States are subject to disparate treatment without any objective justification for the same. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that the requirement for CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States to adopt a different corporate personality and domicile amounts to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. It also offends the general EU principle of equality, since CCPs established in different Member States are subject to disparate treatment without any objective justification for the same.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging






  — | that without assuming the burden of establishing that a public interest justification for such restrictions is not available (the onus being on the ECB to advance its case for a derogation if it so chooses), the United Kingdom contends that any public policy justification advanced by the ECB would not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, since less restrictive means of ensuring control over financial institutions resident within the Union but outside the Euro area are available. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging

—

that without assuming the burden of establishing that a public interest justification for such restrictions is not available (the onus being on the ECB to advance its case for a derogation if it so chooses), the United Kingdom contends that any public policy justification advanced by the ECB would not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, since less restrictive means of ensuring control over financial institutions resident within the Union but outside the Euro area are available.

---

(1)  Made publicly available through publication on the ECB’s website on 5 July 2011.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/30

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)

(Case T-502/11)

2011/C 340/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of crossing sickles, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5164561

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 94500834, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 620636, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 627401, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks was no longer raised in the appeal proceedings, and did not properly assess the likelihood of confusion.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/31

---

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)

(Case T-504/11)

2011/C 340/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protecsom SAS (Valognes, France)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011 in case R 1197/2010-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011 in case R 1197/2010-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DIGNITUDE’, for goods in classes 5, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7506025

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7436603, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 302008076849.5/05, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in classes 5 and 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the goods.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/31

---

Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-509/11)

2011/C 340/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohammad (Mohammed) Makhlouf; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohammad (Mohammed) Makhlouf;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 30.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/31

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-511/11)

2011/C 340/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant asks the Court to annul decision C(2011) 4973 final of the European Commission concerning State aid No C 46/2003 relating to contributions to the Association nationale interprofessionnelle du bétail et des viandes (Interbev). The Commission considered that the voluntary contributions that had become compulsory, levied by Interbev, constituted State aid compatible with the internal market.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, the first of which is essentially identical or similar to that relied on in Case T-478/11 France v Commission.

The second plea alleges a breach by the Commission of its obligation to conduct the administrative procedure within a reasonable time.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-368/07) (1)

2011/C 340/63

Language of the case: Lithuanian

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

---

(1)  C 283, 24.11.2007.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission

(Case F-8/05 REV)

(Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

2011/C 340/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Martine Fouwels and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants for revision are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants for revision are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of decisions notifying the applicants of their transfer of category, in so far as they allocate a grade lower than that which would result from the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the multiplication factor and withdraw the promotion points of the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108 of 06.05.06, p. 32.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, and, finally, by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category C and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in Grades B*3/B*4, maintaining their remuneration at the level prior to the change of category by applying a multiplying coeffficient, and resetting their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121 of 20.05.06, p. 19.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission

(Case F-31/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category B and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in administrative posts, in so far as they determine the applicants’ grading pursuant to Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, maintain the application to their remuneration of a multiplication factor and reset their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 03.06.06, p. 50.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — De Buggenoms and Others v Commission

(Case F-45/06 REV)

(Civil Service - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision relating to an order for removal from the register following withdrawal from the proceedings - Res judicata - Absence - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

2011/C 340/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Sandrine De Buggenoms and Others (Hoeilaart, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Action for revision brought by the applicant against the order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 September 2010, in Case F-45/06.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the parties applying for revision to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties applying for revision to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener in the revision proceedings, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener in the revision proceedings, to bear its own costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission

(Case F-103/06 REV)

(Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

2011/C 340/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Antoine Saintraint (La Paz, Bolivia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Case F-103/06.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application for revision is dimissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for revision is dimissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs of the Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

(Case F-9/07) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 - Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 - Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment - Applicable multiplier - Loss of promotion points - Claim for compensation)

2011/C 340/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, Agents, and subsequently by L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and I. Šulce, and subsequently by K. Zieleśkiewicz, M. Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the European Parliament’s decision regrading the applicant at grade B*6, step 8; she had been included on the reserve list following an internal competition for change of category, before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the latter’s less favourable provisions — Claim for compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69 of 24.03.07, p. 31.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Sarah Whitehead v European Central Bank

(Case F-98/09) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the ECB - Annual salary and bonus review - 2008 review - Annual assessment - Criteria for assessment - Staff Committee consultation - Taking account of periods of sick leave - Setting of objectives)

2011/C 340/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented: initially by F. Feyerbacher and G. Nuvoli, Agents and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Carlini and G. Nuvoli, Agents and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the ECB awarding the applicant a salary increase of two points for the purpose of the Annual Salary and Bonus Review for the year 2008, and payment of the difference between the salary increase received and that to which the applicant claims she was entitled. Second, compensation for non-material loss suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Whitehead to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Whitehead to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.10, p. 82.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — AA v Commission

(Case F-101/09) (1)

(Staff cases - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Classification in grade - Implementation of a judgment - Loss of opportunity)

2011/C 340/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, later by K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD6, Step 2 and for an order that the defendant pay compensation to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant, by way of compensation for the material loss prior to the delivery of the present judgment, an amount equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which he would have received if he had been recruited as an official in intermediate grade A*6 on 1 August 2004 and that, subsequently, his career proceeded in accordance with the advancement in step provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and with the average time spent by an official in each grade, as provided for in Annex I(b) of the Staff Regulations and, on the other hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which the applicant received between 1 August 2004 and the date on which the present judgment was delivered, first, in his capacity as a national civil servant and, from 15 March 2009, in his capacity as an official of the European Union, to which difference must be applied a coefficient of 0,8; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant, by way of compensation for the material loss prior to the delivery of the present judgment, an amount equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which he would have received if he had been recruited as an official in intermediate grade A*6 on 1 August 2004 and that, subsequently, his career proceeded in accordance with the advancement in step provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and with the average time spent by an official in each grade, as provided for in Annex I(b) of the Staff Regulations and, on the other hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which the applicant received between 1 August 2004 and the date on which the present judgment was delivered, first, in his capacity as a national civil servant and, from 15 March 2009, in his capacity as an official of the European Union, to which difference must be applied a coefficient of 0,8;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 120 000 by way of compensation for the material loss subsequent to the delivery of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 120 000 by way of compensation for the material loss subsequent to the delivery of the present judgment;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant the amounts already due pursuant to the present judgment, with default interest from the dates at which those amounts became due respectively and if those dates are prior to 15 March 2009, from the latter date. That interest must be calculated, until the date that payment is actually made, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant the amounts already due pursuant to the present judgment, with default interest from the dates at which those amounts became due respectively and if those dates are prior to 15 March 2009, from the latter date. That interest must be calculated, until the date that payment is actually made, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

| 5. | For the rest, dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

5.

For the rest, dismisses the action;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs;

| 7. | Orders the applicant to bear one-third of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders the applicant to bear one-third of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63 of 13.03.10, p. 52.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-13/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Assessment - Promotion - Action for damages - Admissibility)

2011/C 340/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the assessment of his work during 2008 and annulment of the staff report for 2008. Second, an application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of the European Investment Bank; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of the European Investment Bank;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear half its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear half its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134 of 22.05.10, p. 53.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission

(Case F-68/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise - Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee - Manifest error of assessment)

2011/C 340/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thorsten Behnke (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bersheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in performance group II and to award him 5 promotion points in his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Behnke; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Behnke;

| 3. | Orders Mr Behnke to pay three quarters of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Behnke to pay three quarters of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.10, p. 74.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission

(Case F-117/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition - Conditions for admission - Required qualification - Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education - Decisions of the selection board for a competition - Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority)

2011/C 340/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Barry Van Soest (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision which terminated the recruitment procedure for the applicant, who had passed a competition and been included on the reserve list, because he did not hold a diploma of secondary education giving access to post-secondary education.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Van Soest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Van Soest.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.11, p. 66.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission

(Case F-65/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2011/C 340/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rosa Maria Pereira Sequeira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority, notified to the applicant on 19 September 2005, whereby the latter, a member of the temporary staff and a successful candidate in internal competition COM/PC//04, was appointed an official in Grade C*1, pursuant to the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165 of 15.07.06, p. 36.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission

(Case F-66/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2011/C 340/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalliopi Kyriazi (Clabecq, Belgium) (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented, initally, by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, and subsequently by K. Herrmann and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the 12 September 2005 appointing the applicant a probationary official in Grade C*1, step 2, and of all measures consecutive and/or relating thereto, such as the decision to withdraw and not re-establish her secretarial allowance after her establishment.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mrs Kyriazi and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mrs Kyriazi and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.07.06, p. 43.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission

(Case F-105/06) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion exercise - New career structure - Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action manifestly bound to fail)

2011/C 340/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Johannes Lübking and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and B. Driessen, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision published in Administrative Notices No 85 2005 of 23 November 2005 in so far as it provided for promotion of the applicants to grade A*9 and not grade A*10 in the 2005 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicants and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.06, p. 45.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/39

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Prieto v Parliament

(Case F-42/07) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2011/C 340/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Prieto (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented, initially, by C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, and subsequently by K. Zejdová and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the 9 June 2006 appointing the applicant, at that time a member of the temporary staff in Grade AST 3 and a successful candidate in internal competition C/348 for career C5-4, a probationary official in Grade AST 2, step 3.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action of MrPrieto is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action of MrPrieto is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140 of 23.06.07, p. 47.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/39

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission

(Case F-75/07) (1)

(Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

2011/C 340/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision published in Administrative Notices No 55 2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as it provided for the promotion of the applicants to grade A*9, and not to grade A*10, in the 2006 promotion year.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Brown and Mr Volpato, and the European Commission, are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Brown and Mr Volpato, and the European Commission, are ordered to bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 30.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission

(Case F-82/07) (1)

(Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

2011/C 340/81

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 2007 to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 and not AD 10.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Dittert and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Dittert and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 32.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA

(Case F-6/11) (1)

(Civil service - Action for damages - Action manifestly inadmissible)

2011/C 340/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

Re:

An action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicant following an accident in the workplace which was the result of the breach by the EMA of its obligations concerning the health and safety of workers arising from the European and UK rules.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | M shall bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M shall bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 37.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/40

---

Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-77/11)

2011/C 340/83

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision, adopted in implementation of the judgment in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise, as well as the application for damages which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 1 October 2010, adopted by the Director General of DG A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union in implementation of the judgment of 5 May 2010 in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 1 October 2010, adopted by the Director General of DG A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union in implementation of the judgment of 5 May 2010 in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise;

| — | Order the Council to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6,75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6,75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-81/11)

2011/C 340/84

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report, as well as an application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report;

| — | Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;

| — | Order AESA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order AESA to pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Action brought on 17 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

(Case F-82/11)

2011/C 340/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for a declaration that the elections to the Staff Committee of the Parliament, and the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process, is unlawful.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the elections to the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which were held between 27 October and 24 November 2010 are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the elections to the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which were held between 27 October and 24 November 2010 are unlawful;

| — | declare that the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process are unlawful;

| — | annul the implied decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 20 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaint of 20 January 2011 requesting annulment of the results of the elections to the Staff Committee announced on 19 November 2010 and the results published on 23 and 24 November and 10 December 2010, and that fresh elections be held or at least a second round of voting; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 20 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaint of 20 January 2011 requesting annulment of the results of the elections to the Staff Committee announced on 19 November 2010 and the results published on 23 and 24 November and 10 December 2010, and that fresh elections be held or at least a second round of voting;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Action brought on 26 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-83/11)

2011/C 340/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the president of the selection board for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants (AST3) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

Form of order sought

| — | Principally:






  — | annul the decision adopted on 17 May 2011 refusing to permit the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants in grade AST3; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Principally:

—

annul the decision adopted on 17 May 2011 refusing to permit the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants in grade AST3;

| — | consequently, declare that the applicant must be reinstated in the recruitment procedure put in place by that competition, if necessary, by holding fresh assessment tests. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, declare that the applicant must be reinstated in the recruitment procedure put in place by that competition, if necessary, by holding fresh assessment tests.

| — | In the alternative, if the principal application is not granted, quod non, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, if the principal application is not granted, quod non, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

| — | In any event, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ and Others v Court of Justice

(Case F-84/11)

2011/C 340/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the applicants’ request for payment of the allowance for continuous work or shiftwork provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof (OJ 1976 L 38, p. 1) and damages

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision of 17 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request of 17 January 2011 for, first, payment of the allowance for shiftwork provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976, as most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) of 11 December 2006, and, second, compensation for the damage caused by the Appointing Authority’s failure to reply to their first or to their second request within the statutory time-limit and its failure to indicate the available remedies in the express rejection which caused the loss of their chance to succeed in legal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision of 17 May 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request of 17 January 2011 for, first, payment of the allowance for shiftwork provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976, as most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) of 11 December 2006, and, second, compensation for the damage caused by the Appointing Authority’s failure to reply to their first or to their second request within the statutory time-limit and its failure to indicate the available remedies in the express rejection which caused the loss of their chance to succeed in legal proceedings;

| — | Order the Court of Justice to pay to each applicant a sum of EUR 10 700,76 as compensation for their material damage and a sum of EUR 3 000 each for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Court of Justice to pay to each applicant a sum of EUR 10 700,76 as compensation for their material damage and a sum of EUR 3 000 each for non-material damage;

| — | Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-85/11)

2011/C 340/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

| — | Order the Commission do pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission do pay the costs.

---

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/42

---

Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-86/11)

2011/C 340/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

---