Case C-16/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Marguerite Chetcuti v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Civil service — Competition internal to the institution — Rejection of candidature — Conditions of admission)
Date: 2008-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, competition (EU), equal treatment, recruitment, servant (EU)

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Stroumsas

Applicants: Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06),
Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06),
Ionas
EPE
(C-473/06),
Farma-Group Messinias AE
(C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis
Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06),
Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D.
Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06)

EPE (C-472/06),

Farmakapothiki

Stroumsas

Ionas

Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton

Re:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A.
Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), nmc SA (represented by: P.
Péters and T. de Haan, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-172/05 Armacell v
OHIM whereby the Court dismissed an action by the applicant
for the word mark ‘ARMAFOAM’ for goods in Class 20 for
annulment of Decision R 552/2004-1 of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM) of 23 February 2005 annulling the decision of the
Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought by
the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘NOMAFOAM’ for
goods in Classes 11, 19, 20, 27 and 28

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Efetio Athinon — Inter-
pretation of Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position —
Refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet
fully orders placed by pharmaceutical wholesalers, with the
intention of limiting their export activity and, consequently, the
harm caused to it by parallel trade

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking
occupying a dominant position on the relevant market for medicinal
products which, in order to put a stop to parallel exports carried out by
certain wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States,
refuses to meet ordinary orders from those wholesalers, is abusing its
dominant position. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the
orders are ordinary in the light of both the size of those orders in rela-
tion to the requirements of the market in the first Member State and
the previous business relations between that undertaking and the
wholesalers concerned.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September
2008 — Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office
for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs), nmc SA

(Case C-514/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the
Community word mark ARMAFOAM — Earlier Community
trade mark NOMAFOAM — Relative ground for refusal —
Similarity of the signs — Existence of a relative ground for
refusal in part of the European Community)

(2008/C 301/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Armacell Enterprise GmbH (represented by: O.
Spuhler, Rechtsanwalt)

2. Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October
the
2008 — Marguerite Chetcuti v Commission of

European Communities

(Case C-16/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Civil service — Competition internal
to the
institution — Rejection of candidature — Conditions of
admission)

(2008/C 301/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti
avocat)

(represented by: M.-A. Lucas,

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04
Chetcuti v Commission,
Instance
dismissed the appellant's action for annulment of the decision
of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting
her candidature and for annulment of the subsequent acts of the
competition procedure — Infringement of Articles 4, 27

in which the Court of First

C 301/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations in the version in force until
30 April 2004 — Concept of ‘internal competition’ and the
objective assigned to recruitment of ensuring that the institution
secures the services of persons of the ‘highest standard of ability,
efficiency and integrity’ — Eligibility of auxiliary staff

2. Orders K Swiss Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ms Chetcuti to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania))
— Proceedings for review of the constitutionality of legis-
lation brought by Julius Sabatauskas and Others

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

(Case C-239/07) (1)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October
2008 — K-Swiss Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-144/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 2868/95 — Time-limit for instituting proceedings before
the Court of First Instance — OHIM decision — Notification
by express courier — Calculation of
for
bringing an action)

the time limit

(2008/C 301/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: K-Swiss Inc. (represented by: H.E. Hübner, Advocate)

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

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-14/06 K-Swiss v
OHIM dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of a
decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM — Time-limit for
instituting proceedings — Notification by express courier —
Date from which the time-limit begins to run

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

(Internal market in electricity — Directive 2003/54/EC —
Article 20 — Transmission and distribution systems — Third
party access — Obligations of Member States — Open access
of third parties to electricity transmission and distribution
systems)

(2008/C 301/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas

Parties in the main proceedings

Julius Sabatauskas and Others

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos respublikos
konstitucinis teismas — Interpretation of Article 20 of Direc-
tive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal
market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — State-
ments made with regards
to decommissioning and waste
management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Compatibility
with the directive of national legislation permitting consumers
to have access to the electricity transmission system only after
refusal by the distribution system operator to grant access to a
distribution system.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 20 of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for
the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC
is to be interpreted as defining the Member States' obligations only
in respect of the access and not the connection of third parties to
the electricity transmission and distribution systems and as not
laying down that the system of network access that the Member
States are required to establish must allow an eligible customer to
choose, at his discretion, the type of system to which he wishes to
connect.