# Official Journal C 65/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.065.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 65 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 553 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.065.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 65

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 553 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2012/C 065/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 58, 25.2.2012 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2012/C 065/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 58, 25.2.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2012/C 065/02 | Case C-411/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission | 2 |
| 2012/C 065/03 | Case C-534/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie | 2 |
| 2012/C 065/04 | Case C-552/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf | 2 |
| 2012/C 065/05 | Case C-606/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs | 3 |
| 2012/C 065/06 | Case C-607/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — ITV Broadcasting Limited e.a. v TV Catch Up Limited | 3 |
| 2012/C 065/07 | Case C-612/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) on 30 November 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso | 4 |
| 2012/C 065/08 | Case C-615/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA | 4 |
| 2012/C 065/09 | Case C-627/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. Augustus Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit | 5 |
| 2012/C 065/10 | Case C-638/11 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission | 5 |
| 2012/C 065/11 | Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission | 6 |
| 2012/C 065/12 | Case C-648/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 6 |
| 2012/C 065/13 | Case C-653/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance | 6 |
| 2012/C 065/14 | Case C-655/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 7 |
| 2012/C 065/15 | Case C-680/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | 8 |
| 2012/C 065/16 | Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union | 8 |
| 2012/C 065/17 | Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests | 9 |
| 2012/C 065/18 | Case C-10/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2012 by Transnational Company Kazchrome AO, ENRC Marketing AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08: Transnational Company Kazchrome AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union | 9 |
| 2012/C 065/19 | Case C-13/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2012 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union | 10 |
| 2012/C 065/20 | Case C-25/12 P: Appeal on 17 January 2012 by Gino Trevisanato against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Gino Trevisanato v European Commission | 10 |
| | General Court |
| 2012/C 065/21 | Case T-260/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP — Earlier national word mark VISUAL — 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)) | 12 |
| 2012/C 065/22 | Case T-71/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Admissibility — Proportionality — Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 — Rights of the defence — Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007) | 12 |
| 2012/C 065/23 | Case T-332/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIAGUARA — Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 12 |
| 2012/C 065/24 | Case T-593/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark containing the letter B — Earlier Community figurative mark containing the letter B — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2012/C 065/25 | Case T-103/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Shang v OHIM (justing) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark justing — Earlier national figurative mark JUSTING — Seniority of the earlier national mark claimed — Signs not identical — Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2012/C 065/26 | Case T-636/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap) | 13 |
| 2012/C 065/27 | Case T-644/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission | 14 |
| 2012/C 065/28 | Case T-645/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Michael Heath against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10, Heath v ECB | 14 |
| 2012/C 065/29 | Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON) | 15 |
| 2012/C 065/30 | Case T-663/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA) | 16 |
| 2012/C 065/31 | Case T-664/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA) | 16 |
| 2012/C 065/32 | Case T-669/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spirlea and Spirlea v Commission | 17 |
| 2012/C 065/33 | Case T-671/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — IPK International v Commission | 18 |
| 2012/C 065/34 | Case T-673/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB) | 18 |
| 2012/C 065/35 | Case T-3/12: Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts) | 18 |
| 2012/C 065/36 | Case T-5/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee) | 19 |
| 2012/C 065/37 | Case T-14/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Kazino Parnithas v Commission | 19 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2012/C 065/38 | Case F-125/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 21 |
| 2012/C 065/39 | Case F-127/11: Action brought on 29 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 21 |
| 2012/C 065/40 | Case F-128/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v EIB | 21 |
| 2012/C 065/41 | Case F-130/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 22 |
| 2012/C 065/42 | Case F-131/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 23 |
| 2012/C 065/43 | Case F-132/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 23 |
| 2012/C 065/44 | Case F-134/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission | 23 |
| 2012/C 065/45 | Case F-135/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency | 24 |
| 2012/C 065/46 | Case F-136/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 24 |
| 2012/C 065/47 | Case F-138/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 24 |
| 2012/C 065/48 | Case F-139/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 25 |
| 2012/C 065/49 | Case F-140/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 25 |
| 2012/C 065/50 | Case F-141/11: Action brought on 23 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 25 |
| 2012/C 065/51 | Case F-142/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council | 26 |
| 2012/C 065/52 | Case F-143/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 26 |
| 2012/C 065/53 | Case F-144/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 27 |
| 2012/C 065/54 | Case F-3/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission | 27 |
| 2012/C 065/55 | Case F-4/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission | 28 |
| 2012/C 065/56 | Case F-8/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA | 28 |
| 2012/C 065/57 | Case F-10/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission | 29 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2012/C 065/02

Case C-411/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission

2

2012/C 065/03

Case C-534/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

2

2012/C 065/04

Case C-552/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf

2

2012/C 065/05

Case C-606/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

3

2012/C 065/06

Case C-607/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — ITV Broadcasting Limited e.a. v TV Catch Up Limited

3

2012/C 065/07

Case C-612/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) on 30 November 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso

4

2012/C 065/08

Case C-615/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA

4

2012/C 065/09

Case C-627/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. Augustus Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

5

2012/C 065/10

Case C-638/11 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission

5

2012/C 065/11

Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

6

2012/C 065/12

Case C-648/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

6

2012/C 065/13

Case C-653/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance

6

2012/C 065/14

Case C-655/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

7

2012/C 065/15

Case C-680/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

8

2012/C 065/16

Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

8

2012/C 065/17

Case C-7/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

9

2012/C 065/18

Case C-10/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2012 by Transnational Company Kazchrome AO, ENRC Marketing AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08: Transnational Company Kazchrome AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union

9

2012/C 065/19

Case C-13/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2012 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

10

2012/C 065/20

Case C-25/12 P: Appeal on 17 January 2012 by Gino Trevisanato against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Gino Trevisanato v European Commission

10

General Court

2012/C 065/21

Case T-260/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP — Earlier national word mark VISUAL — 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))

12

2012/C 065/22

Case T-71/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Admissibility — Proportionality — Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 — Rights of the defence — Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

12

2012/C 065/23

Case T-332/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIAGUARA — Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

12

2012/C 065/24

Case T-593/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark containing the letter B — Earlier Community figurative mark containing the letter B — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13

2012/C 065/25

Case T-103/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Shang v OHIM (justing) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark justing — Earlier national figurative mark JUSTING — Seniority of the earlier national mark claimed — Signs not identical — Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13

2012/C 065/26

Case T-636/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

13

2012/C 065/27

Case T-644/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission

14

2012/C 065/28

Case T-645/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Michael Heath against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10, Heath v ECB

14

2012/C 065/29

Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)

15

2012/C 065/30

Case T-663/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

16

2012/C 065/31

Case T-664/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

16

2012/C 065/32

Case T-669/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spirlea and Spirlea v Commission

17

2012/C 065/33

Case T-671/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — IPK International v Commission

18

2012/C 065/34

Case T-673/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)

18

2012/C 065/35

Case T-3/12: Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

18

2012/C 065/36

Case T-5/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)

19

2012/C 065/37

Case T-14/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Kazino Parnithas v Commission

19

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2012/C 065/38

Case F-125/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

21

2012/C 065/39

Case F-127/11: Action brought on 29 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

21

2012/C 065/40

Case F-128/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v EIB

21

2012/C 065/41

Case F-130/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

22

2012/C 065/42

Case F-131/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

23

2012/C 065/43

Case F-132/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

23

2012/C 065/44

Case F-134/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

23

2012/C 065/45

Case F-135/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency

24

2012/C 065/46

Case F-136/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

24

2012/C 065/47

Case F-138/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

24

2012/C 065/48

Case F-139/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

25

2012/C 065/49

Case F-140/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

25

2012/C 065/50

Case F-141/11: Action brought on 23 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

25

2012/C 065/51

Case F-142/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council

26

2012/C 065/52

Case F-143/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

26

2012/C 065/53

Case F-144/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

27

2012/C 065/54

Case F-3/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

27

2012/C 065/55

Case F-4/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

28

2012/C 065/56

Case F-8/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA

28

2012/C 065/57

Case F-10/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

29

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

2012/C 65/01

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

OJ C 58, 25.2.2012

Past publications

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012

OJ C 39, 11.2.2012

OJ C 32, 4.2.2012

OJ C 25, 28.1.2012

OJ C 13, 14.1.2012

OJ C 6, 7.1.2012

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission

(Case C-411/11 P)

2012/C 65/02

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Zdeněk Altner (represented by: J. Čapek, advokát)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 15 December 2012 the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Z. Altner to bear his own costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

(Case C-534/11)

2012/C 65/03

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehmet Arslan

Defendant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 2(1), in conjunction with recital 9 of the preamble, 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 (1) be interpreted to mean that this Directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 2(1), in conjunction with recital 9 of the preamble, 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 (1) be interpreted to mean that this Directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status? (2)

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the detention of a foreign national for the purpose of return be terminated if he applies for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85/EC and there are no other reasons to keep him in detention? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the detention of a foreign national for the purpose of return be terminated if he applies for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85/EC and there are no other reasons to keep him in detention?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf

(Case C-552/11)

2012/C 65/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mönchengladbach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gisbert Thöne

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf

This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 8 December 2011.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-606/11)

2012/C 65/05

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grattan plc

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

If the Court of Justice concludes that the answer to the Question 1 referred in the case of Littlewoods Retail Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Case C-591/10) is in the negative:

| 1. | Do the EU law principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence require the remedy for an overpayment of VAT in breach of EU law to be a single remedy for both the reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid and for the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the EU law principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence require the remedy for an overpayment of VAT in breach of EU law to be a single remedy for both the reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid and for the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?;

| 2. | In circumstances where there are alternative remedies under domestic law, is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence for the remedy or remedies not to be in the statutory provisions governing the making of the principal reimbursement claims and the appeals from administrative decisions on those claims?; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances where there are alternative remedies under domestic law, is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence for the remedy or remedies not to be in the statutory provisions governing the making of the principal reimbursement claims and the appeals from administrative decisions on those claims?; and

| 3. | Is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence to require a claimant to pursue the principal reimbursement claim and the claim for simple interest in one set of proceedings before the Tax Tribunal and the balance of the remedy required by EU law in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest in separate proceedings before the High Court? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence to require a claimant to pursue the principal reimbursement claim and the claim for simple interest in one set of proceedings before the Tax Tribunal and the balance of the remedy required by EU law in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest in separate proceedings before the High Court?

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — ITV Broadcasting Limited e.a. v TV Catch Up Limited

(Case C-607/11)

2012/C 65/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ITV Broadcasting Limited e.a.

Defendant: TV Catch Up Limited

Question referred

On the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (‘the InfoSoc Directivew’):

| 1. | Does the right to authorise or prohibit a ‘communication to the public of their works by wire or wireless means’ in Article 3.1 of the Directive extend to a case where:






  (i) | Authors authorise the inclusion of their works in a terrestrial free-to-air television broadcast which is intended for reception either throughout the territory of a Member State or within a geographical area within a Member State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does the right to authorise or prohibit a ‘communication to the public of their works by wire or wireless means’ in Article 3.1 of the Directive extend to a case where:

(i)

Authors authorise the inclusion of their works in a terrestrial free-to-air television broadcast which is intended for reception either throughout the territory of a Member State or within a geographical area within a Member State;

| (ii) | A third party (i.e. an organisation other than the original broadcaster), provides a service whereby individual subscribers within the intended area of reception of the broadcast who could lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver in their own homes may log on to the third party's server and receive the content of the broadcast by means of an internet stream? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

A third party (i.e. an organisation other than the original broadcaster), provides a service whereby individual subscribers within the intended area of reception of the broadcast who could lawfully receive the broadcast on a television receiver in their own homes may log on to the third party's server and receive the content of the broadcast by means of an internet stream?

Does it make any difference to the answer to the above question if:

| (a) | The third party's sewer allows only a “one-to-one” connection for each subscriber whereby each individual subscriber establishes his or her own internet connection to the server and every data packet sent by the server onto the internet is addressed to only one individual subscriber? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

The third party's sewer allows only a “one-to-one” connection for each subscriber whereby each individual subscriber establishes his or her own internet connection to the server and every data packet sent by the server onto the internet is addressed to only one individual subscriber?

| (b) | The third party's service is funded by advertising which is presented ‘pre-roll’ (i.e. during the period of time after a subscriber logs on but before he or she begins to receive the broadcast content) ‘orin-skin’ (i.e. within the frame of the viewing software which displays the received programme on the subscriber's viewing device but outside the programme picture) but the original advertisements contained within the broadcast are presented to the subscriber at the point where they are inserted in the programme by the broadcaster? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The third party's service is funded by advertising which is presented ‘pre-roll’ (i.e. during the period of time after a subscriber logs on but before he or she begins to receive the broadcast content) ‘orin-skin’ (i.e. within the frame of the viewing software which displays the received programme on the subscriber's viewing device but outside the programme picture) but the original advertisements contained within the broadcast are presented to the subscriber at the point where they are inserted in the programme by the broadcaster?

| (c) | the intervening organisation is:






  (i) | providing an alternative service to that of the original broadcaster, thereby acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for viewers; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

the intervening organisation is:

(i)

providing an alternative service to that of the original broadcaster, thereby acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for viewers; or

| (ii) | acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for advertising revenues? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

acting in direct competition with the original broadcaster for advertising revenues?

---

(1)  OJ L 167, p. 10

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) on 30 November 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso

(Case C-612/11)

2012/C 65/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Tribunale di Milano

Party in the main proceedings

Vincenzo Veneruso

Questions referred

Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the sporting bets industry authorise national legislation establishing a monopoly regime and a system of concessions and authorisations which, in the context of a given number of concessions, makes provision for:

| (a) | the existence of a general tendency to protect the holders of concessions granted during an earlier period on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the existence of a general tendency to protect the holders of concessions granted during an earlier period on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators;

| (b) | the presence of provisions which de facto guarantee the maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the end of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators (as, for example, the prohibition on new concession holders from installing their counters at less than a given distance from those already existing; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the presence of provisions which de facto guarantee the maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the end of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators (as, for example, the prohibition on new concession holders from installing their counters at less than a given distance from those already existing; and

| (c) | the fixing of hypotheses for the expiry of the concession and the acquisition of guarantees of a very high amount, such hypotheses including that in which the concessionnaire directly or indirectly operates cross-border gaming activities comparable with those forming the subject-matter of the concession? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the fixing of hypotheses for the expiry of the concession and the acquisition of guarantees of a very high amount, such hypotheses including that in which the concessionnaire directly or indirectly operates cross-border gaming activities comparable with those forming the subject-matter of the concession?

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/4

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission, supported by Air One SpA

(Case C-615/11 P)

2012/C 65/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, S. Noë, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd, Air One SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011, notified to the Commission on 30 September 2011, in Case T-442/07 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission in so far as it declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees complained of in the letter; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011, notified to the Commission on 30 September 2011, in Case T-442/07 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission in so far as it declares that the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees complained of in the letter;

| — | reject the application for a declaration of failure to act by the Commission of the European Communities in failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of failure to act by the Commission of the European Communities in failing to adopt a decision in respect of the transfer of the 100 Alitalia employees, complained of in the letter of 16 June 2006 sent to the Commission by Ryanair Ltd;

| — | order Ryanair Ltd to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ryanair Ltd to pay the costs;

| — | alternatively,






  — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alternatively,

—

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | Misinterpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). The General Court erred in law when it set out the criteria that determine if the Commission is in possession of information or a complaint about alleged unlawful aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). The General Court erred in law when it set out the criteria that determine if the Commission is in possession of information or a complaint about alleged unlawful aid;

| — | Error in the legal qualification of Ryanair's letter of 16 June 2006. The General Court concluded that the Commission had received a complaint or information regarding alleged unlawful aid in the form of the letter of 16 June 2006. The Commission considers that in so doing the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of that letter; |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in the legal qualification of Ryanair's letter of 16 June 2006. The General Court concluded that the Commission had received a complaint or information regarding alleged unlawful aid in the form of the letter of 16 June 2006. The Commission considers that in so doing the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of that letter;

| — | Error in law in ascertaining whether the Commission was under a duty to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC by reference to the requirements of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in law in ascertaining whether the Commission was under a duty to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC by reference to the requirements of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

(Case C-627/11)

2012/C 65/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

Question referred

Are Council Regulations No 1260/1999 (1) and No 1268/1999 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the business activity engaged in by the beneficiaries of the SAPARD funds granted in the period preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union must be conducted in compliance with the conditions for the grant of those funds, in accordance with the principle of the economic efficiency and profitability of the beneficiary, given also the specific circumstances relied upon, namely the natural disasters which occurred in the area?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre- accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87).

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/5

---

Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission

(Case C-638/11 P)

2012/C 65/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment (judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 in case T-199/04 in so far as the General Court (i) annulled Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (‘Contested Regulation’) and (ii) ordered the Council to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Applicant); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment (judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 in case T-199/04 in so far as the General Court (i) annulled Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (‘Contested Regulation’) and (ii) ordered the Council to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Applicant);

| — | dismiss the third limb of the fifth plea of the Application; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the third limb of the fifth plea of the Application;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for the remainder of the Application; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for the remainder of the Application;

| — | order the Applicant to pay the costs of the appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicant to pay the costs of the appeal; and

| — | reserve costs for the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve costs for the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the General Court erred in finding that the abolition of the previous anti-dumping duties on bed linen from Pakistan and the implementation of a scheme of generalised tariff preferences in favour of Pakistan at the start of 2002 constituted ‘other factors’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. Consequently, the General Court erred in finding that in the present case the institutions committed a violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation because they failed to separate and distinguish the alleged injurious effects of these factors.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan

OJ L 66, p. 1

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

(Case C-646/11 P)

2012/C 65/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,

| — | Give final judgment on the matter, |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment on the matter,

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.

| — | The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-648/11)

2012/C 65/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MA, BT, DA

Defendants: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested party: Aire Centre

Questions referred

| 1. | In Regulation 343/2003/EC establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50 25 February 2003 p. l), where an applicant for asylum who is an unaccompanied minor with no member of his or her family legally present in another Member State has lodged claims for asylum in more than one Member State, which Member State does the second paragraph of article 6 make responsible for determining the application for asylum? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Regulation 343/2003/EC establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50 25 February 2003 p. l), where an applicant for asylum who is an unaccompanied minor with no member of his or her family legally present in another Member State has lodged claims for asylum in more than one Member State, which Member State does the second paragraph of article 6 make responsible for determining the application for asylum?

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance

(Case C-653/11)

2012/C 65/13

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance

Questions referred

| 1. | In circumstances such as those in the present case, what weight should a national court give to contracts in determining the question of which person made a supply of services for the purposes of VAT? In particular, is the contractual position decisive in determining the VAT supply position? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In circumstances such as those in the present case, what weight should a national court give to contracts in determining the question of which person made a supply of services for the purposes of VAT? In particular, is the contractual position decisive in determining the VAT supply position?

| 2. | In circumstances such as those in the present case, if the contractual position is not decisive, in what circumstances should a national court depart from the contractual position? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those in the present case, if the contractual position is not decisive, in what circumstances should a national court depart from the contractual position?

| 3. | In circumstances such as those in the present case, in particular, to what extent is it relevant:






  (a) | Whether the person who makes the supply as a matter of contract is under the overall control of another person? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In circumstances such as those in the present case, in particular, to what extent is it relevant:

(a)

Whether the person who makes the supply as a matter of contract is under the overall control of another person?

| (b) | Whether the business knowledge, commercial relationship and experience rests with a person other than that which enters into the contract? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Whether the business knowledge, commercial relationship and experience rests with a person other than that which enters into the contract?

| (c) | Whether all or most of the decisive elements in the supply are performed by a person other than that which enters into the contract? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Whether all or most of the decisive elements in the supply are performed by a person other than that which enters into the contract?

| (d) | Whether the commercial risk of financial and reputational loss arising from the supply rests with someone other than that which enters into the contracts? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Whether the commercial risk of financial and reputational loss arising from the supply rests with someone other than that which enters into the contracts?

| (e) | Whether the person making the supply, as a matter of contract, sub-contracts decisive elements necessary for such supply to a person controlling that first person and such sub-contracting arrangements lack certain commercial features? |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Whether the person making the supply, as a matter of contract, sub-contracts decisive elements necessary for such supply to a person controlling that first person and such sub-contracting arrangements lack certain commercial features?

| 4. | In circumstances such as those in the present case, should the national court depart from the contractual analysis? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In circumstances such as those in the present case, should the national court depart from the contractual analysis?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is ‘no’, is the tax result of arrangements such as those in this case a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of the Sixth Directive (1) within the meaning of paragraphs 74 to 86 of the Judgment in Case C-255/02 Halifax Plc and others v CCE? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is ‘no’, is the tax result of arrangements such as those in this case a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of the Sixth Directive (1) within the meaning of paragraphs 74 to 86 of the Judgment in Case C-255/02 Halifax Plc and others v CCE?

| 6. | If the answer to question 5 is yes, how should arrangements such as those in the present case be recharacterised? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to question 5 is yes, how should arrangements such as those in the present case be recharacterised?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment

OJ L 145, p. 1

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-655/11 P)

2012/C 65/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10), |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10),

| — | Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2), |
| --- | --- |

—

Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2),

| — | Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN |
| --- | --- |

—

Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN

| — | Secondly, the General Court did not fulfil the requirements of settled case-law in assessing the notion of similarity between the trademarks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR and did not take into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the General Court did not fulfil the requirements of settled case-law in assessing the notion of similarity between the trademarks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR and did not take into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-680/11)

2012/C 65/15

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anita Chieza

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Question referred

| 1. | Is the differential treatment on the basis of gender under the incapacity benefit scheme necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age so that it falls within the scope of the derogation under Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7 (1) in circumstances where a claimant:






  (a) | is a woman; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is the differential treatment on the basis of gender under the incapacity benefit scheme necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age so that it falls within the scope of the derogation under Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7 (1) in circumstances where a claimant:

(a)

is a woman;

| (b) | falls ill before reaching pensionable age (for a woman, 60); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

falls ill before reaching pensionable age (for a woman, 60);

| (c) | receives statutory sick pay (SSP) from her employer for 28 weeks, taking her past pensionable age; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

receives statutory sick pay (SSP) from her employer for 28 weeks, taking her past pensionable age;

| (d) | after reaching pensionable age, makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

after reaching pensionable age, makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit;

| (e) | meets the contributions requirements for entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

meets the contributions requirements for entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit;

| (f) | is denied short-term incapacity benefit because as a matter of law her ‘period of incapacity for work’ began after she reached pensionable age (because legislation provides that a period of entitlement to SSP does not count as a period of incapacity for work), |
| --- | --- |

(f)

is denied short-term incapacity benefit because as a matter of law her ‘period of incapacity for work’ began after she reached pensionable age (because legislation provides that a period of entitlement to SSP does not count as a period of incapacity for work),

but where a male claimant who falls ill shortly before the age of 60, receives SSP from his employer for 28 weeks, and makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit at the age of 60, will in principle qualify for short-term incapacity benefit, as his period of incapacity for work began before he attained pensionable age, albeit after reaching 60?

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security

OJ L 6, p. 24

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/8

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/11 P)

2012/C 65/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.

The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 4 January 2012 — Nadežda Riežniece v Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-7/12)

2012/C 65/17

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece

Defendants: Zemkopības ministrija (Republic of Latvia), Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave included in annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (2) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC be interpreted as meaning that an employer is precluded from undertaking any action (in particular, the assessment of an employee while absent) which might result in a female employee on parental leave losing her post after returning to work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave included in annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (2) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC be interpreted as meaning that an employer is precluded from undertaking any action (in particular, the assessment of an employee while absent) which might result in a female employee on parental leave losing her post after returning to work?

| 2. | Does the answer to the previous question differ if the reason for such action is the fact that, due to the economic recession in a Member State, in all the administrations of the State the number of civil servants has been optimised and posts abolished? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the previous question differ if the reason for such action is the fact that, due to the economic recession in a Member State, in all the administrations of the State the number of civil servants has been optimised and posts abolished?

| 3. | Must the assessment of an applicant’s work and merits which takes into account his latest annual performance appraisal as a civil servant and his results before parental leave be regarded as indirect discrimination when compared to the fact that the work and merits of other civil servants who have continued in active employment (taking the opportunity, moreover, to achieve further merit) are assessed according to fresh criteria? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the assessment of an applicant’s work and merits which takes into account his latest annual performance appraisal as a civil servant and his results before parental leave be regarded as indirect discrimination when compared to the fact that the work and merits of other civil servants who have continued in active employment (taking the opportunity, moreover, to achieve further merit) are assessed according to fresh criteria?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

(2)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2012 by Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/12 P)

2012/C 65/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG (represented by: A. Willems, avocat, S. De Knop, advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement of the General Court of 25 October 2011 insofar as the General Court did not annul the Contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement of the General Court of 25 October 2011 insofar as the General Court did not annul the Contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court;

| — | adopt a definitive ruling and annul the Contested Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt a definitive ruling and annul the Contested Regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court;

| — | order any intervener(s) to pay the costs of the Appeal and of the procedure before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any intervener(s) to pay the costs of the Appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court:

| — | Erred in law in holding that the Institutions’ violations of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation (1) were insufficient to annul the Contested Regulation (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law in holding that the Institutions’ violations of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation (1) were insufficient to annul the Contested Regulation (2);

| — | Erred in law in holding that the Institutions were not required to conduct a collective analysis of the injurious effects caused by factors other than the dumped imports; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law in holding that the Institutions were not required to conduct a collective analysis of the injurious effects caused by factors other than the dumped imports;

| — | Erred in ordering the Appellants to pay the costs of the Council and of Euroalliages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in ordering the Appellants to pay the costs of the Council and of Euroalliages.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 56, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

OJ L 55, p. 6

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/10

---

Appeal brought on 10 January 2012 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-13/12 P)

2012/C 65/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocate, N. Mizulin, solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the Contested Judgment in its entirety, including the order on costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the Contested Judgment in its entirety, including the order on costs;

| — | Give in itself the final judgment on the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul the Contested Regulation (1) insofar as it affects the Appellants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Give in itself the final judgment on the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul the Contested Regulation (1) insofar as it affects the Appellants; and

| — | Order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the Appellants both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the Appellants both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants in support of their appeal before the Court of Justice put forward the following arguments:

| | The Appellants submit that the General Court (i) distorted the clear sense of the relevant evidence and in any event did not adequately state reasons insofar as the construction of the export price by using a notional profit margin is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

The Appellants submit that the General Court (i) distorted the clear sense of the relevant evidence and in any event did not adequately state reasons insofar as the construction of the export price by using a notional profit margin is concerned.

| | The Appellants also submit that the General Court (ii) erred in law when it found that the |
| --- | --- |

The Appellants also submit that the General Court (ii) erred in law when it found that the

| | Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and the FYROM provides grounds for lawful discrimination against the Appellants; (iii) erred in law in its assessment of the obligations stemming from Articles 6(7) and 8(4) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (2) and in the assessment of the principle of rights of defence; (iv) erred in its assessment of the significance of procedural guarantees and of the relevant duties of the Institutions in the context of administrative proceedings in antidumping cases and (v) distorted the clear sense of the facts in relation to the undertaking offered by the Appellants and that offered by another producer, thus reaching a wrongful conclusion in this regard that affects the validity of the Contested Judgment. |
| --- | --- |

Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and the FYROM provides grounds for lawful discrimination against the Appellants; (iii) erred in law in its assessment of the obligations stemming from Articles 6(7) and 8(4) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (2) and in the assessment of the principle of rights of defence; (iv) erred in its assessment of the significance of procedural guarantees and of the relevant duties of the Institutions in the context of administrative proceedings in antidumping cases and (v) distorted the clear sense of the facts in relation to the undertaking offered by the Appellants and that offered by another producer, thus reaching a wrongful conclusion in this regard that affects the validity of the Contested Judgment.

| | Finally the Appellants submit that the General Court (vi) erred in its interpretation of Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation and the methodology in determining the material injury of the Union Industry in antidumping cases; (vii) erred in its interpretation of causal link pursuant to Article 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and (viii) erred in its appreciation of the obligation imposed on the Institutions to state reasons insofar as the injury determination in antidumping cases is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

Finally the Appellants submit that the General Court (vi) erred in its interpretation of Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation and the methodology in determining the material injury of the Union Industry in antidumping cases; (vii) erred in its interpretation of causal link pursuant to Article 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and (viii) erred in its appreciation of the obligation imposed on the Institutions to state reasons insofar as the injury determination in antidumping cases is concerned.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

OJ L 55, p. 6

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 56, p. 1

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/10

---

Appeal on 17 January 2012 by Gino Trevisanato against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Gino Trevisanato v European Commission

(Case C-25/12 P)

2012/C 65/20

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gino Trevisanato (represented by L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought

| — | Annul the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11, declaring the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the General Court to rule on the applications in the action for failure to take action, brought by the applicant on 29 September 2011 against the European Commission, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11, declaring the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the General Court to rule on the applications in the action for failure to take action, brought by the applicant on 29 September 2011 against the European Commission, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU;

| — | Consequently, rule on the merits of the action with costs awarded to the successful party, or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, rule on the merits of the action with costs awarded to the successful party, or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant makes three pleas in law in support of his appeal.

The applicant maintains that the order is vitiated by factual error through misinterpretation of the applicant’s claim. He had not asked the Court to find an unlawful refusal by the Commission to take a position, by means of a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 258 TFEU, on the inadequate transposition into the Italian legal order of Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, as the order presupposes. He had, on the contrary, requested the Court to hold that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act by not notifying to the applicant the legally binding position on the request which, 4 years after the complaint, was raised again with the request of 11 July 2011 with regard to the right or otherwise of employees in Italy to enjoy the protection of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies, that right having been denied by the Italian courts to the applicant, who had been the victim of a redundancy of that type, carried out by IBM in Italy.

The General Court then erred by declaring that it had no jurisdiction, on the basis of the Order of the Court of Justice of 26 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P Pevasa and Inpesca. That case-law was not relevant in that case on account of the different factual background.

Finally, the General Court infringed its Rules of Procedure and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by omitting to notify the action to the opposing party, publish a summary in the Official Journal and refer the matter to the Advocate General.

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

---

General Court

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)

(Case T-260/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP - Earlier national word mark VISUAL - 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))

2012/C 65/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indo Internacional, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain) (represented: initially by X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, and subsequently by M. Curell Aguilà and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Visual SA (Saint-Apollinaire, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 700/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Visual SA and Indo Internacional, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Indo Internacional, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Indo Internacional, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission

(Case T-71/10) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Proportionality - Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 - Rights of the defence - Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

2012/C 65/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol (France) and Pace International LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, Agents, and assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM

(Case T-332/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ - Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 65/23

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Viaguara S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, M. Mazurek and J. Dudzik, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially M. Hawkins, Solicitor, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard and M. Fowler, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Viaguara S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viaguara S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)

(Case T-593/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ - Earlier Community figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 65/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jian Min Ruan (Mem Martins, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2010 (Case R 576/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Jian Min Ruan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders El Corte Inglès, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders El Corte Inglès, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Shang v OHIM (justing)

(Case T-103/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘justing’ - Earlier national figurative mark JUSTING - Seniority of the earlier national mark claimed - Signs not identical - Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 65/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tiantian Shang (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Salerni, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 December 2010 (Case R 1388/2010-2), relating to a claim of seniority of the national figurative mark JUSTING held by Mrs Tiantian Shang.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Tiantian Shang to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Tiantian Shang to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/13

---

Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

(Case T-636/11)

2012/C 65/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;

| — | reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition;

| — | refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aznar textil, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community

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, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/14

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission

(Case T-644/11 P)

2012/C 65/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eugène Emile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant clams that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:






  — | annul the appellant’s 2008 Career Development Report; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:

—

annul the appellant’s 2008 Career Development Report;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(8) of Annex I to the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the European Union Staff Regulations, distortion of the file and infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging failure by the reporting officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc committee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(8) of Annex I to the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the European Union Staff Regulations, distortion of the file and infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging failure by the reporting officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc committee.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and of the burden of proof, and also infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons in its examination of the plea alleging unlawful appeals procedure and failure to state reasons in the appraisal report challenged at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and of the burden of proof, and also infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons in its examination of the plea alleging unlawful appeals procedure and failure to state reasons in the appraisal report challenged at first instance.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the obligation to state reasons and manifest error of assessment, and also infringement of Article 4(6) of the general rules for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging a failure to take account of the work performed by the appellant in the interest of the institution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the obligation to state reasons and manifest error of assessment, and also infringement of Article 4(6) of the general rules for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging a failure to take account of the work performed by the appellant in the interest of the institution.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and disregard of the burden of proof and infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the reporting officer’s assessment of whether or not the appellant had complied with the alleged reorganisation of the department being tested since 2008. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and disregard of the burden of proof and infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the reporting officer’s assessment of whether or not the appellant had complied with the alleged reorganisation of the department being tested since 2008.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/14

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Michael Heath against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10, Heath v ECB

(Case T-645/11 P)

2012/C 65/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michael Heath (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 September 2011 in Case F-121/10;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:






  — | annul the salary slip for January 2010 and the following months, in so far as these apply a pension increase of 0,6 %, in order to apply an increase of 2,1 % calculated in accordance with a lawful GSA [General Salary Adjustment]; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:

—

annul the salary slip for January 2010 and the following months, in so far as these apply a pension increase of 0,6 %, in order to apply an increase of 2,1 % calculated in accordance with a lawful GSA [General Salary Adjustment];

| — | to the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the requests for reconsideration and the complaints lodged by the appellant, decisions of 11 May 2010 and 9 September 2010 respectively; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the requests for reconsideration and the complaints lodged by the appellant, decisions of 11 May 2010 and 9 September 2010 respectively;

| — | order the ECB to pay the difference between the pension increase of 0,6 % granted unlawfully to the appellant as from January 2010 and that of 2,1 % to which he should have been entitled, namely a salary increase of 1,5 % per month as from January 2010. Those amounts should have interest applied as from their respective due dates until the date of actual payment, calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus 2 points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the difference between the pension increase of 0,6 % granted unlawfully to the appellant as from January 2010 and that of 2,1 % to which he should have been entitled, namely a salary increase of 1,5 % per month as from January 2010. Those amounts should have interest applied as from their respective due dates until the date of actual payment, calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus 2 points;

| — | order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, to compensate for the appellant’s material damage resulting from the loss in his purchasing power; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, to compensate for the appellant’s material damage resulting from the loss in his purchasing power;

| — | order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, assessed ex aequo et bono to compensate for his non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay EUR 5 000, assessed ex aequo et bono to compensate for his non-material damage;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law, infringement of the concept of measure having adverse effects and infringement of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law, infringement of the concept of measure having adverse effects and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

| 2. | Second and third pleas, alleging infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file and failure to state reasons; infringement of Article 17(7) of Annex III to the Conditions of employment and the rules relating to the burden of proof in the review by the Civil Service Tribunal of the lawfulness of the opinion of the actuary and the lawfulness of the content of that opinion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second and third pleas, alleging infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment, distortion of the file and failure to state reasons; infringement of Article 17(7) of Annex III to the Conditions of employment and the rules relating to the burden of proof in the review by the Civil Service Tribunal of the lawfulness of the opinion of the actuary and the lawfulness of the content of that opinion.

| 3. | Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file, failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to examine the lawfulness of the intervention beyond November 2009 of the ECB’s actuary in place until 31 October 2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file, failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to examine the lawfulness of the intervention beyond November 2009 of the ECB’s actuary in place until 31 October 2009.

| 4. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 48 of the Conditions of employment, infringement of the right of freedom of association and the fundamental right of collective negotiation as enshrined inter alia in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as the Civil Service Tribunal considered that ‘the applicant cannot complain that the ECB did not consult the Staff Committee prior to fixing the pension adjustment for 2010’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 48 of the Conditions of employment, infringement of the right of freedom of association and the fundamental right of collective negotiation as enshrined inter alia in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as the Civil Service Tribunal considered that ‘the applicant cannot complain that the ECB did not consult the Staff Committee prior to fixing the pension adjustment for 2010’.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/15

---

Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)

(Case T-660/11)

2012/C 65/29

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; 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 applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLYTETRAFLON’, for goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 6131015

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 432120 of the word mark ‘TEFLON’, for amongst others, goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15(1), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark and that genuine use for the earlier mark was proven.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-663/11)

2012/C 65/30

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4;

| — | 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: Royal Mediterranea SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-664/11)

2012/C 65/31

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4;

| — | 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: Royal Mediterranea SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/17

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spirlea and Spirlea v Commission

(Case T-669/11)

2012/C 65/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore, Italy) and Mihaela Spirlea (Cappezzano Piamore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accept the present application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;

| — | declare the application admissible; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible; and

| — | declare it well-founded, and accordingly find that the Commission has committed substantial procedural irregularities and other substantive errors of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it well-founded, and accordingly find that the Commission has committed substantial procedural irregularities and other substantive errors of law;

| — | on that basis annul the decision of the Commission’s Secretariat-General of 9 November 2011 (SG.B.5/MKu/rc-Ares(2011)); |
| --- | --- |

—

on that basis annul the decision of the Commission’s Secretariat-General of 9 November 2011 (SG.B.5/MKu/rc-Ares(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 nine pleas in law.

| 1. | Failure to adhere to the order of assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

  The applicants submit that the defendant failed to fulfil its assessment obligation under Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and to adhere to the mandatory order of assessment provided for by that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Failure to adhere to the order of assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

The applicants submit that the defendant failed to fulfil its assessment obligation under Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and to adhere to the mandatory order of assessment provided for by that regulation.

| 2. | Breach of the principle of equality of arms
  The applicants submit that the Member State concerned was informed of the substance of the applicants’ reasons for requiring access to the document requested, but that, by contrast, the contested decision contains only rudimentary statements regarding the substance of the German authorities’ response. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Breach of the principle of equality of arms

The applicants submit that the Member State concerned was informed of the substance of the applicants’ reasons for requiring access to the document requested, but that, by contrast, the contested decision contains only rudimentary statements regarding the substance of the German authorities’ response.

| 3. | Breach of the applicants’ right to be heard
  The applicants submit that the defendant withheld the substance of the German authorities’ answer from them and that the applicants were unable to comment on the merits of the Member State’s opposition having regard to the requisite exceptions under Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Breach of the applicants’ right to be heard

The applicants submit that the defendant withheld the substance of the German authorities’ answer from them and that the applicants were unable to comment on the merits of the Member State’s opposition having regard to the requisite exceptions under Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

| 4. | Non-rejection of the second exception
  In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to rule out the second exception claimed by the German authorities (Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Non-rejection of the second exception

In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to rule out the second exception claimed by the German authorities (Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001).

| 5. | Failure to identify the document to which the applicants seek access
  In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to describe in precise terms — with regard to the number of pages and the author — the document to which access was refused. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Failure to identify the document to which the applicants seek access

In the applicants’ view, the defendant failed in its duty to describe in precise terms — with regard to the number of pages and the author — the document to which access was refused.

| 6. | Breach of the right to be heard in the context of the consultation procedure
  The applicants submit that the defendant’s failure to make the request for consultation issued to the German authorities available to the applicants is contrary to recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants also object to the fact that the German authorities’ answer was not made available to them. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Breach of the right to be heard in the context of the consultation procedure

The applicants submit that the defendant’s failure to make the request for consultation issued to the German authorities available to the applicants is contrary to recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants also object to the fact that the German authorities’ answer was not made available to them.

| 7. | Unlawful application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  The applicants object to the fact that the Commission extended the scope of application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to ‘German authorities’ and, moreover, made manifest errors of assessment in its examination of and reasoning as regards the circumstances provided for under Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Unlawful application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001

The applicants object to the fact that the Commission extended the scope of application of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to ‘German authorities’ and, moreover, made manifest errors of assessment in its examination of and reasoning as regards the circumstances provided for under Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

| 8. | No specific consideration of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  It is claimed that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to the documents under Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the document as a whole was brought within the scope of Article 4(2) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

8.

No specific consideration of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001

It is claimed that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to the documents under Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the document as a whole was brought within the scope of Article 4(2) of that regulation.

| 9. | Overriding public interest in disclosure (Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001) |
| --- | --- |

9.

Overriding public interest in disclosure (Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001)

---

(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).

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/18

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — IPK International v Commission

(Case T-671/11)

2012/C 65/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2011 (ENTR/R1/HHO/lsa — entr.r.1(2011)1183091) in so far as it grants the applicant interest merely in the amount of EUR 158 618,27; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2011 (ENTR/R1/HHO/lsa — entr.r.1(2011)1183091) in so far as it grants the applicant interest merely in the amount of EUR 158 618,27;

| — | 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 submits that the defendant infringed Article 266 TFEU as it incorrectly calculated the compensatory and default interest to be paid as a consequence of the judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2011 in Case T-297/05 IPK International v Commission.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/18

---

Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)

(Case T-673/11)

2012/C 65/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sigla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find the present application and the accompanying documents to be duly lodged and admissible, take note that an action has been brought against the Decision of 6 October 2011 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 641/2011-1 and, following the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment annulling the abovementioned decision and expressly order the Office to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

find the present application and the accompanying documents to be duly lodged and admissible, take note that an action has been brought against the Decision of 6 October 2011 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 641/2011-1 and, following the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment annulling the abovementioned decision and expressly order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VIPS CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal to register the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the sign applied for is not descriptive and has distinctive character.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/18

---

Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

(Case T-3/12)

2012/C 65/35

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2011 in Case R 1804/2010-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2011 in Case R 1804/2010-2; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MEMBER OF €e euro experts’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is an alleged danger that the public will be misled as regards the quality of the goods and services designated by the mark; infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the mark contains a heraldic imitation of European flag No 3556 (circular number) deposited at WIPO pursuant to Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; and infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the applicant’s mark monopolises the ‘€’ symbol which was determined graphically by the Communication from the European Commission COM (97) 418 final.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no identical reproduction of the official ‘€’ sign which is necessary for that article to apply; in the alternative, the conditions relating to the derogation in Article 6ter(1)(c) of the Paris Convention have in any event been met as the public would not assume that the applicant’s figurative mark is connected with the European Monetary Union (or the European Union); in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the European Commission expressly referred to Article 7(1)(c) in its application for a declaration of invalidity, with the result that it can only be assumed that there was an error in making the application and that its reliance on the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(g) for the first time in the appeal proceedings must be regarded as belated and inadmissible.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/19

---

Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)

(Case T-5/12)

2012/C 65/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected;

| — | Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Wash & Coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 37 and 43

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as OHIM failed to examine the facts on which it based its decision in the manner required and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/19

---

Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Kazino Parnithas v Commission

(Case T-14/12)

2012/C 65/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, N. Niejahr, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis and K. Spyropoulos, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25);

| — | In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the contested decision to the extent it applies to the applicant; or

| — | Further in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Further in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that the measure at stake constituted an aid measure by:






  — | identifying that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of Euro 7,20 per Ticket; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that the measure at stake constituted an aid measure by:

—

identifying that the applicant benefited from an economic advantage in the form of a ‘fiscal discrimination’ in the amount of Euro 7,20 per Ticket;

| — | finding that the measure involved forgone State resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

finding that the measure involved forgone State resources;

| — | considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

considering that the measure was selective in favour of the applicant; and

| — | concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

concluding that the measure distorted competition and had an effect on trade between Member States.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and this Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide adequate reasoning to enable the applicant to understand and this Court to review the reasoning based on which it found that the applicant benefited from a selective advantage, that any such advantage involved forgone State revenues and would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that in so far as the contested decision orders recovery of amounts from the applicant it violates:






  — | Article 14(1), first sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that in so far as the contested decision orders recovery of amounts from the applicant it violates:

—

Article 14(1), first sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), pursuant to which recovery shall relate to the aid received by the beneficiary, since the defendant failed to correctly quantify in the contested decision the amount of aid that the applicant may have received; and

| — | Article 14(1), second sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 14(1), second sentence, of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since recovery in this case infringes general principles of EU law, namely: the principle of legitimate expectations; the principle of legal certainty; and the principle of proportionality.

---

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

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

---

Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-125/11)

2012/C 65/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision refusing the applicant the right to participate in the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries grade AST 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision refusing the applicant the right to participate in the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries grade AST 1;

| — | reintegrate the applicant into the recruitment process in that competition, if necessary, by organising new assessment tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

reintegrate the applicant into the recruitment process in that competition, if necessary, by organising new assessment tests;

| — | in any event, request EPSO to take note of the information at its disposal regarding the results obtained by all of the candidates in tests (d) and (e); |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, request EPSO to take note of the information at its disposal regarding the results obtained by all of the candidates in tests (d) and (e);

| — | in the alternative, if the main claim is not upheld, quod non, to pay the provisional sum, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the main claim is not upheld, quod non, to pay the provisional sum, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000;

| — | in any event, pay the provisional sum, ex aequo and bono, of EUR 50 000 in non-material damages. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, pay the provisional sum, ex aequo and bono, of EUR 50 000 in non-material damages.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

---

Action brought on 29 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-127/11)

2012/C 65/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the jury’s decision not to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | annul the jury's decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the jury's decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10;

| — | annul the jury's decision of 4 April 2011 confirming its decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant's name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the jury's decision of 4 April 2011 confirming its decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant's name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10;

| — | annul EPSO’s decision of 29 August 2011 rejecting the appeal brought by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the staff regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul EPSO’s decision of 29 August 2011 rejecting the appeal brought by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the staff regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

---

Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-128/11)

2012/C 65/40

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: EIB

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

In the first place, application for annulment of the e-mail messages and decisions of the EIB concerning the administrative procedure relating to the applicant’s performance appraisal for 2010. In the second place, application for annulment of the decision whereby the President of the EIB refused to instigate the conciliation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations. In the third place, application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2010 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D. Finally, an application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul (i) the e-mail message dated 4 July 2011 by which ‘the secretariat’ of the Adjudication Panel under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and the Note to StaffHR/P&O/2011-079/Ks of 25 March 2010 informed the applicant that he had never handed over to the ‘Panel’ a copy of his appeal against the staff appraisal for 2010, (ii) the e-mail message of 12 August 2011 by which the ‘secretariat’ informed the applicant that the Adjudication Panel intended to hear the parties solely on the question of admissibility of the appeal and (iii) the decision of 27 September 2011 by which the ‘Panel’ took note of the applicant’s discontinuance of his appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul (i) the e-mail message dated 4 July 2011 by which ‘the secretariat’ of the Adjudication Panel under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and the Note to StaffHR/P&O/2011-079/Ks of 25 March 2010 informed the applicant that he had never handed over to the ‘Panel’ a copy of his appeal against the staff appraisal for 2010, (ii) the e-mail message of 12 August 2011 by which the ‘secretariat’ informed the applicant that the Adjudication Panel intended to hear the parties solely on the question of admissibility of the appeal and (iii) the decision of 27 September 2011 by which the ‘Panel’ took note of the applicant’s discontinuance of his appeal;

| — | annul the Note to Staff HR/P&O/2011-079/Ks of 25 March 2011 and the Note CD/Pres/2011-35 of 6 September 2011, by which, following a request from applicant by note of 2 August 2011 and a further application by e-mail of 2 September 2011, the President of the EIB refused to initiate the conciliation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, asserting that it had been superseded by the abovementioned Note to Staff ...; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Note to Staff HR/P&O/2011-079/Ks of 25 March 2011 and the Note CD/Pres/2011-35 of 6 September 2011, by which, following a request from applicant by note of 2 August 2011 and a further application by e-mail of 2 September 2011, the President of the EIB refused to initiate the conciliation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, asserting that it had been superseded by the abovementioned Note to Staff ...;

| — | annul the guidelines established by the HR division by note 698 RH/P&O/2010-0265 of 20 December 2010 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2010 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which (point 12.1) they provide that the final evaluation must be expressed by means of a summary description but do not establish the criteria which must be used by the appraiser in order for performance to be regarded as ‘exceptional ... exceeding expectations’, ‘very good’ or ‘[meeting] all expectations’, nor for performance to be regarded as ‘[meeting] most expectations with areas for improvement’ or as ‘[failing] to meet expectations’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the guidelines established by the HR division by note 698 RH/P&O/2010-0265 of 20 December 2010 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2010 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which (point 12.1) they provide that the final evaluation must be expressed by means of a summary description but do not establish the criteria which must be used by the appraiser in order for performance to be regarded as ‘exceptional ... exceeding expectations’, ‘very good’ or ‘[meeting] all expectations’, nor for performance to be regarded as ‘[meeting] most expectations with areas for improvement’ or as ‘[failing] to meet expectations’;

| — | annul the entire staff report for 2010, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and the part in which objectives are set for 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the entire staff report for 2010, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and the part in which objectives are set for 2011;

| — | annul all the connected, consequent and preliminary measures and documents, which will certainly include the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources ‘2010 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’ of April 2011, given that, in view of the appraisal made by the applicant’s line managers and challenged in this action, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all the connected, consequent and preliminary measures and documents, which will certainly include the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources ‘2010 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’ of April 2011, given that, in view of the appraisal made by the applicant’s line managers and challenged in this action, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage sustained; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage sustained;

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

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/22

---

Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-130/11)

2012/C 65/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions transferring pension rights acquired before entry into Commission service on the basis of the re-calculated PMO proposal.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions annulling and replacing the proposals for transfer of the applicants’ pension rights pursuant to their application under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contain a new proposal calculated on the basis of the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions annulling and replacing the proposals for transfer of the applicants’ pension rights pursuant to their application under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contain a new proposal calculated on the basis of the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/23

---

Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-131/11)

2012/C 65/42

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers,)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the recalculated proposal of the PMO

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 15 June 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of his request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which comprises a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 15 June 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of his request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which comprises a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/23

---

Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-132/11)

2012/C 65/43

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of working days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority;

| — | In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011;

| — | Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/23

---

Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-134/11)

2012/C 65/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following the withdrawal of a transfer proposal accepted by the applicants after a reasonable period had elapsed in order to benefit from the possibility of transferring their pension rights

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance in order that they could have access to all relevant information to decide, as necessary, to transfer their pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance in order that they could have access to all relevant information to decide, as necessary, to transfer their pension rights;

| — | Order the Commission to pay EUR 500 per month of delay in the sending of an offer, in good and due form, of transfer of the applicants’ pension rights, with effect from the date when the PMO decided to withdraw the offer accepted by the applicants and pension funds, namely 25 January for the first applicant and 5 February for the second applicant, or, at the very latest, with effect from the rejection on 9 March 2011 of their request for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay EUR 500 per month of delay in the sending of an offer, in good and due form, of transfer of the applicants’ pension rights, with effect from the date when the PMO decided to withdraw the offer accepted by the applicants and pension funds, namely 25 January for the first applicant and 5 February for the second applicant, or, at the very latest, with effect from the rejection on 9 March 2011 of their request for assistance;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/24

---

Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency

(Case F-135/11)

2012/C 65/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract;

| — | Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally;

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

—

Order EMA to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/24

---

Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-136/11)

2012/C 65/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing, in the Community pension scheme, the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before her entry into service

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of her request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of her request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/24

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-138/11)

2012/C 65/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the recalculated proposal of the PMO

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 11 May 2011 annulling and replacing the decision of 22 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 11 May 2011 annulling and replacing the decision of 22 October 2009;

| — | establish the validity of the agreement concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the offer accepted in accordance with the calculation of the decision of 22 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the validity of the agreement concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the offer accepted in accordance with the calculation of the decision of 22 October 2009;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2011, expressly dismissing the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2011, expressly dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

| — | in the alternative, acknowledge the damage suffered and grant the applicant the sum of EUR 6 207,71 by way of damages, plus interest for delay at two percentage points over the rate of the European Central Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, acknowledge the damage suffered and grant the applicant the sum of EUR 6 207,71 by way of damages, plus interest for delay at two percentage points over the rate of the European Central Bank;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/25

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-139/11)

2012/C 65/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch and E. Raimond, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment, first, of the decision of OLAF’s Director-General containing a final invitation to a hearing of the applicant in the framework of an internal investigation and stating that a final report on the investigation would be adopted on the basis only of the information collected and analysed unilaterally by OLAF, if the applicant did not accept the invitation and, second, of the letter rejecting his complaint.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 28 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 October 2011;

| — | Annul the letter of 2 December 2011 ruling on the complaint of 21 November 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the letter of 2 December 2011 ruling on the complaint of 21 November 2011;

| — | Award the applicant compensation in the sum of EUR 6000 in damages with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant compensation in the sum of EUR 6000 in damages with interest;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/25

---

Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-140/11)

2012/C 65/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch, E. Raimond, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Director General of OLAF issuing a final invitation to the applicant to be heard in an internal enquiry and stating that a final report on the enquiry was to be adopted on the basis only of the information gathered and analysed unilaterally by OLAF if the applicant did not comply with that invitation and the letter rejecting the applicant’s claim

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 28 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 October 2011;

| — | Annul the decision of 2 December 2011 ruling on the claim of 21 November 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 2 December 2011 ruling on the claim of 21 November 2011;

| — | Award the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in respect of compensatory damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in respect of compensatory damages;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/25

---

Action brought on 23 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-141/11)

2012/C 65/50

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period from September to December 2010 and January 2011.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul each of the five following decisions — whatever the form in which they were adopted, issued by or, in any event, attributable to the Commission, and whether in whole or in part — rejecting the claims set out in the following five requests: (1.a) the decision rejecting the claims set out in the request of 5 October 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 2 November 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 6 December 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 January 2011 sent to the appointing authority; (1.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 February 2011 sent to the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul each of the five following decisions — whatever the form in which they were adopted, issued by or, in any event, attributable to the Commission, and whether in whole or in part — rejecting the claims set out in the following five requests: (1.a) the decision rejecting the claims set out in the request of 5 October 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 2 November 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 6 December 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 January 2011 sent to the appointing authority; (1.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 February 2011 sent to the appointing authority;

| — | Declare, in so far as necessary, that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354, as registered on 28 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare, in so far as necessary, that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354, as registered on 28 February 2011;

| — | Annul the following five decisions — each of which was issued by or is in any event attributable to the Commission — rejecting the following complaints made by the applicant, whether those decisions rejected the complaints in whole or in part: (3.a) the decision rejecting the complaint of 26 April 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 5 October 2010; (3.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 May 2011; (3.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 20 June 2011; (3.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 24 June 2011; (3.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 July 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the following five decisions — each of which was issued by or is in any event attributable to the Commission — rejecting the following complaints made by the applicant, whether those decisions rejected the complaints in whole or in part: (3.a) the decision rejecting the complaint of 26 April 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 5 October 2010; (3.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 May 2011; (3.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 20 June 2011; (3.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 24 June 2011; (3.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 July 2011;

| — | Annul Note HR.D.21MB/ac Ares(2011) 941139 of 8 August 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Note HR.D.21MB/ac Ares(2011) 941139 of 8 August 2011;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/26

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-142/11)

2012/C 65/51

Language of the case: English

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 not to promote the applicant to grade AD9 after succeeding in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 9 December 2010 and the subsequent decision of 7 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 9 December 2010 and the subsequent decision of 7 October 2011;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant damages;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/26

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-143/11)

2012/C 65/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to reimburse a quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of 15 February 2011.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission to reject the claims set out in the applicant’s request of 16 August 2011 sent to the Commission in the person of its legal representative pro tempore and to the appointing authority of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission to reject the claims set out in the applicant’s request of 16 August 2011 sent to the Commission in the person of its legal representative pro tempore and to the appointing authority of the Commission;

| — | Declare that the Commission has abstained from adopting the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in particular the measures complying with that part of the judgment of 15 February 2011 relating to the costs of the proceedings in that case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission has abstained from adopting the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in particular the measures complying with that part of the judgment of 15 February 2011 relating to the costs of the proceedings in that case;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 316,31, which, if and in so far as it is not paid to the applicant, will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from tomorrow and until the day on which payment of that sum takes place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 316,31, which, if and in so far as it is not paid to the applicant, will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from tomorrow and until the day on which payment of that sum takes place;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 per day for each additional day which, with effect from tomorrow, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 180th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 5 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 per day for each additional day which, with effect from tomorrow, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 180th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 5 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 6 per day for each additional day which, from the 181st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 270th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 6 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 6 per day for each additional day which, from the 181st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 270th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 6 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 7,50 per day for each additional day which, from the 271st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 360th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 7,50 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 7,50 per day for each additional day which, from the 271st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 360th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 7,50 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 per day for each additional day which, from the 361st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, ad infinitum, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 10 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 per day for each additional day which, from the 361st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, ad infinitum, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 10 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/27

---

Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-144/11)

2012/C 65/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: I. Ruiz Garcia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests following publication of a corrigendum to the notice of competition annulling the eliminatory mark for situational judgment test (d).

Form of order sought

| — | Annul decision EPSO/R/17/11 and the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature in application of the corrigendum; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul decision EPSO/R/17/11 and the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature in application of the corrigendum;

| — | Invite the applicant to the second stage of the competition EPSO/AST/111/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Invite the applicant to the second stage of the competition EPSO/AST/111/10;

| — | Award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 400 in damages with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 400 in damages with interest;

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/27

---

Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-3/12)

2012/C 65/54

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision by which the Commission rejected the request of 23 November 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision by which the Commission rejected the request of 23 November 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;

| — | Annul Note HR.D.2/MB/ls/Ares(2011) 74616 of 24 January 2011, received by the applicant in person on 3 March 2011 and by his legal representative on a date not before 25 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Note HR.D.2/MB/ls/Ares(2011) 74616 of 24 January 2011, received by the applicant in person on 3 March 2011 and by his legal representative on a date not before 25 February 2011;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 20 May 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 November 2010, annul that decision, grant the request of 23 November 2010 and uphold the complaint of 20 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 20 May 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 November 2010, annul that decision, grant the request of 23 November 2010 and uphold the complaint of 20 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;

| — | In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure for settlement of the claim of 25 November 2002 sent by the applicant to the EC continued for more than five years; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure for settlement of the claim of 25 November 2002 sent by the applicant to the EC continued for more than five years;

| — | In so far as necessary, declare that, already by the date of the request of 23 November 2010, the duration of the procedure in question had exceeded what could be deemed reasonable and, on that ground alone, was excessive and unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, declare that, already by the date of the request of 23 November 2010, the duration of the procedure in question had exceeded what could be deemed reasonable and, on that ground alone, was excessive and unlawful;

| — | Accordingly, order the Commission to make reparation for the material and non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicant up to the date of the request of 23 November 2010, on account of the unreasonable, excessive and unlawful duration of the procedure in question, by paying to him the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, order the Commission to make reparation for the material and non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicant up to the date of the request of 23 November 2010, on account of the unreasonable, excessive and unlawful duration of the procedure in question, by paying to him the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 23 November 2010 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum, or at the rate which the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 23 November 2010 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum, or at the rate which the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/28

---

Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-4/12)

2012/C 65/55

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Commission’s Internet site, which are accessible to all Commission officials, following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision sent by the appointing authority rejecting the claim set out in the request of 20 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision sent by the appointing authority rejecting the claim set out in the request of 20 October 2010;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 24 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the decision rejecting the request of 20 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 24 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the decision rejecting the request of 20 October 2010;

| — | in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/28

---

Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-8/12)

2012/C 65/56

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 dismiss the applicant and compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | order EASA to pay EUR 1 514 257,48 in compensation for material and non-material damage associated with the loss of the applicant’s temporary staff post, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASA to pay EUR 1 514 257,48 in compensation for material and non-material damage associated with the loss of the applicant’s temporary staff post, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;

| — | order EASA to pay a daily sum fixed on an equitable basis at EUR 500,00 per day from 31 May 2010 until the date of service of final judgment as compensation for the entirety of the damage caused by harassment committed by EASA agents, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASA to pay a daily sum fixed on an equitable basis at EUR 500,00 per day from 31 May 2010 until the date of service of final judgment as compensation for the entirety of the damage caused by harassment committed by EASA agents, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;

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

—

order EASA to pay the costs.

---

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/29

---

Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-10/12)

2012/C 65/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant daily subsistence allowances to the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 24 May 2011 and the explicit decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2011, and order the Commission to pay the daily subsistence allowance. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 24 May 2011 and the explicit decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2011, and order the Commission to pay the daily subsistence allowance.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---