do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-83/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Priority points — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/49

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission

(Case F-83/06) (1)

(Case F-113/06) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Priority points —
General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations)

(Staff case — Officials — ‘Second round’ promotion — 2005
promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transi-
tional provisions — General
implementing provisions for
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment —
Admissibility)

(2009/C 32/95)

Language of the case: French

(2009/C 32/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell
F. Frabetti, lawyer)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(represented by:

Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment, primarily, of
the lists of officials
promoted in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as
those lists do not contain the applicant's name and, in the alter-
native, of the allocation of promotion points in those years in
so far as the applicant is concerned

Staff case — First, annulment of the decision of the Commission
not to include the applicants either on the merit list or on the
list of those promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion
procedure; second, annulment of the decisions to award the
applicants transitional priority points inasmuch as these points
are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade; third,
annulment of the decisions not to award any other priority
points to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 18.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 49.
Case F-136/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Reali v Commission (Staff case — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Experience — Qualifications — Equivalence)
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, professional experience, recognition of diplomas, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract

C 32/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Buckingham and Others v
Commission

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Reali v Commission

(Case F-116/06) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — ‘Second round’ promotion —
2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points —
Transitional provisions — GIP for Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)

(2009/C 32/97)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-136/06) (1)

(Staff case — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification
in grade — Experience — Qualifications — Equivalence)

(2009/C 32/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

Applicant: Enzo Reali
A. Pappas, lawyer)

(Florence,

Italy)

(represented by: S.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and Katarzyna Herrmann, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment of
the Commission decision of
23 November 2005, published in Administrative Notices
No 85-2005, in that it did not allocate to the applicants, offi-
cials in grade A*12, any priority points in recognition of the
work carried out in the interests of the institution during the
2004 reporting period

Staff case — Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision
of 30 August 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appli-
cant, a member of the contract staff, requesting to be reclassified
from Grade 14 to Grade 16 in Function Group IV, on account
of the value to be attributed to his ‘Laurea in Scienze agrarie’
diploma in the calculation of his professional experience.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 66.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 38.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5382 — Kuehne + Nagel/Alloin) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance, logistics, merger control, property market, transport company

11.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/1

II

(Information)

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COMMISSION

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5382 — Kuehne + Nagel/Alloin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 316/01)

On 2 December 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public
after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This
website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case
number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5382. EUR-Lex is the

on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).
Case T-90/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders (Tomorrow Focus) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus — Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), information technology industry, trade-mark law

C 32/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December
2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders
(Tomorrow Focus)

(Case T-90/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus — Earlier
Community figurative mark FOCUS — Likelihood of confu-
sion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December
2008 — JTEKT v OHIM (IFS)

(Case T-462/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a Community
word mark IFS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Not
descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/47)

Parties

(2009/C 32/48)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JTEKT Corp., formerly Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha
(Aichi-ken, Japan) (represented by: initially by J. Wachinger and
M. Zöbisch, and subsequently by M. De Zorti, M. Koch and
T. Grimm, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
Monguiral, Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1)
concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a
Community trade mark.

Applicant: Tomorrow Focus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented
initially by U. Gürtler, then by J. Berlinger)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Information Builders
(Netherlands) BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to
Builders
opposition
(Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.

Information

proceedings

between

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1);

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by

JTEKT Corp.

2. orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
Case F-116/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Buckingham and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Second round promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transitional provisions — GIP for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, administrator, regulations for civil servants

C 32/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Buckingham and Others v
Commission

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Reali v Commission

(Case F-116/06) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — ‘Second round’ promotion —
2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points —
Transitional provisions — GIP for Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)

(2009/C 32/97)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-136/06) (1)

(Staff case — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification
in grade — Experience — Qualifications — Equivalence)

(2009/C 32/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

Applicant: Enzo Reali
A. Pappas, lawyer)

(Florence,

Italy)

(represented by: S.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and Katarzyna Herrmann, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment of
the Commission decision of
23 November 2005, published in Administrative Notices
No 85-2005, in that it did not allocate to the applicants, offi-
cials in grade A*12, any priority points in recognition of the
work carried out in the interests of the institution during the
2004 reporting period

Staff case — Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision
of 30 August 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appli-
cant, a member of the contract staff, requesting to be reclassified
from Grade 14 to Grade 16 in Function Group IV, on account
of the value to be attributed to his ‘Laurea in Scienze agrarie’
diploma in the calculation of his professional experience.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 66.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 38.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1232/2008 of 11 December 2008 granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural market, award of contract, butter, common organisation of markets, export restriction

12.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 334/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1232/2008

of 11 December 2008

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided
for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of
22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agri­
cultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agri­
cultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular
Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June
2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export
refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for
a permanent tender.

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common
rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export
refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following

an examination of the tenders submitted in response to
the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any
refund for the tendering period ending on 9 December
2008.

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organis­
ation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an
opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC)
No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 9 December
2008, no export refund shall be granted for the products and
destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in
Article 2 of that Regulation.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 December 2008.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
Director-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.
(3) OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1233/2008 of 11 December 2008 granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural market, award of contract, common organisation of markets, export restriction, milk product, skimmed milk

L 334/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.12.2008

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1233/2008

of 11 December 2008

granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to
tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of
22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agri­
cultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agri­
cultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular
Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3)
and following an examination of the tenders submitted
in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate
not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending
on 9 December 2008.

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organis­
ation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an
opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June
2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export
refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for
a standing invitation to tender procedure.

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down
common rules for establishing a tender procedure for

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC)
No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 9 December
2008, no export refund shall be granted for the product and
destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2
respectively of that Regulation.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 December 2008.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
Director-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3) OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case F-113/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Second round promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transitional provisions — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/49

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission

(Case F-83/06) (1)

(Case F-113/06) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Priority points —
General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations)

(Staff case — Officials — ‘Second round’ promotion — 2005
promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transi-
tional provisions — General
implementing provisions for
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment —
Admissibility)

(2009/C 32/95)

Language of the case: French

(2009/C 32/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell
F. Frabetti, lawyer)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(represented by:

Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment, primarily, of
the lists of officials
promoted in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as
those lists do not contain the applicant's name and, in the alter-
native, of the allocation of promotion points in those years in
so far as the applicant is concerned

Staff case — First, annulment of the decision of the Commission
not to include the applicants either on the merit list or on the
list of those promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion
procedure; second, annulment of the decisions to award the
applicants transitional priority points inasmuch as these points
are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade; third,
annulment of the decisions not to award any other priority
points to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 18.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 49.
Commission opinion of 11 December 2008 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the AGATE liquid effluent treatment plant, located in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, environmental risk prevention, health risk, public health, radioactive effluent, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste, storage of waste

C 322/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.12.2008

OPINIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION OPINION

of 11 December 2008

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the AGATE liquid effluent
treatment plant, located in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the French text is authentic)

(2008/C 322/02)

On 21 April 2008, the European Commission received from the Government of France, in accordance with
Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste
arising from the AGATE liquid effluent treatment plant.

On the basis of these data, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has
drawn up the following opinion:

1. the distance between the AGATE facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State,

in this case Italy, is approximately 110 km while Spain is 230 km away;

2. during normal operation, the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents will not cause an

exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State;

3. solid radioactive waste will be temporarily stored on site before being transferred to a disposal facility

authorised by the French Government;

4.

in the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and
magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable
to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that, both in normal operation and in the event of an acci-
dent of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the implementation of the plan for the
disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the AGATE liquid effluent treatment plant,
located on the site of Cadarache in France, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water,
soil or airspace of another Member State.