10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/1

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/2

—

set aside the Judgment

—

annul the Decision (1)

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings

a)

The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.

b)

The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.

c)

The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.

d)

The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/3

1.

Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations…, read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country?

2.

Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport…, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

3.

Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/4

1.

Do (a) the principles of the free movement of goods and of the freedom to provide services within the internal market, (b) the principle of the effectiveness of EU competition law and of the liberalisation of the internal market, (c) the principles of effet utile and of the uniform application within the European Union of EU law and (d) the provisions of secondary EU law, such as Directive 98/71, (1) and in particular Article 14 thereof, Article 1 of Regulation No 461/2010 (2) and UNECE Regulation No. 124, preclude an interpretation of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002, (3) which contains the repair clause, that excludes replica wheels aesthetically identical to original equipment wheels and approved on the basis of UNECE Regulation No. 124 from the definition of a ‘component part of a complex product’ (that complex product being a motor vehicle) for the purposes of the repair of that complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, do the rules on exclusive industrial rights in respect of registered designs, regard being had to the balancing of the interests referred to in the first question, preclude the application of the repair clause to replica complementary products that may be selected freely by the customer, on the basis that the repair clause is to be interpreted restrictively and may be relied upon only with respect to spare parts that come in one particular form only, that is to say, component parts the form of which has been determined in practically immutable fashion with respect to the external appearance of the complex product, to the exclusion of component parts that may be regarded as interchangeable and that may be applied freely, in accordance with the customer wishes?

3.

In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, what steps must a manufacturer of replica wheels take in order to ensure the free movement of products the intended use of which is the repair of a complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/4

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/5

1.

Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State cannot take into account a currency loss in connection with the amount which it has invested in a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas it would be able to do so if that subsidiary were to be included in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of the Netherlands single tax entity — with that parent company established in the first-mentioned Member State, as a result of consolidation within the single tax entity?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can or must the point of departure for determining the currency loss to be taken into account be that (one or more of) the direct and indirect subsidiaries indirectly held by the parent company concerned, through the subsidiary in question, and established in the European Union, should also be included in the single tax entity?

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: should account be taken only of currency losses that would have been reflected on the parent company’s inclusion in the single tax entity in the years to which the dispute relates, or should the currency exchange results that would have been reflected in earlier years also be taken into account?

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

1.

Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

4.

Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

5.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

6.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

7.

Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

1.

Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

4.

Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

5.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

6.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

7.

Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/7

—

Set aside the Judgment;

—

Annul Article 1(15) of Regulation 1263 (1) either in its entirety or insofar as it applies to the Bank;

—

Declare that Article 1(6) of Decision 635 (2) is inapplicable to the Bank; and

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

1.

The Appellant, Bank Mellat (the ‘Bank’), appeals against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13 Bank Mellat v Council EU:T:2016:331 (the ‘Judgment’). In summary, the Bank contends that the General Court erred in failing to uphold its application to annul or declare inapplicable to the Bank various measures constituting a ‘Financial Embargo’ on the Bank, namely:

2.

In particular, the Bank has identified three grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the Bank’s application:

3.

The Bank has also identified two broad grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the admissibility of parts of the Bank’s application:

4.

The Bank respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment and make the order sought by the Bank.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

—

annul Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), (1) and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

The first plea in law claims an infringement of Article 191 TFEU, which sets out the objectives of the European Union policy on the environment.

2.

The second plea in law claims an infringement of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which affirms the right to a high level of environmental protection.

3.

The third plea in law claims an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (ΕC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. (2)

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

—

order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits Adjustments system constitutes State aid.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in identifying the groups as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/10

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2016, C (2016) 2796 in case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited/Telefónica (Europe plc), notified to Hutchison on 13 May 2016 declaring the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 in its entirety; and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those related to any potential intervener.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, and infringement of essential procedural requirements in the interpretation and application of the legal test for the assessment of horizontal non-coordinated effects in the market for retail mobile telecommunications services in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred with respect to the qualification of the applicant as an ‘important competitive force’ and in assessing closeness of competition. The Commission also committed manifest errors of assessment in the analysis of the predicted price effects and likely incentives of the merged entity following the Concentration.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and distortion of the evidence with respect to the analysis of the counterfactual scenario. In particular: the Commission failed to assess Hutchison’s network capacity relative to that of its competitors and impermissibly relies on the alleged ability of Hutchison to adopt ‘demand management’ initiatives, such as increasing prices, as a reason for rejecting Hutchison’s evidence concerning future network capacity.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising from network sharing. In particular: the Commission has erred in relation to its novel propositions concerning the necessity and extent of ‘alignment’ between competitors in network sharing agreements; and the Commission has committed an error of law and manifest errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on potential harm to competitors of the merged entity rather than competition. The Commission committed further errors in rejecting Commitments offered by Hutchison that would have fully resolved all of its concerns relating to network sharing.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, errors of law and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising in the wholesale market for access and call origination on public mobile networks in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred in concluding that Hutchison is an ‘important competitive force’ in the wholesale market despite having a very small market share (less than 3 %); and in basing its conclusions on the opinions of third parties instead of conducting its own analysis.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, lack of reasoning and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to the evaluation of the Commitments offered by Hutchison in respect of concerns relating to the retail and wholesale mobile telecommunications markets in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission incorrectly objected to the proposed Commitments alleging uncertainty of their implementation; the Commission has manifestly erred in its assessment of the ability of new and strengthened competitors to compete effectively on the basis of the proposed Commitments; and the Commission erred in its assessment of the overall suitability of the proposed Commitments to offset the loss of competition alleged in the decision.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/11

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

—

Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

—

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

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

—

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/14

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November 2013 in case State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) — Lithuania, Aid to Klaipedos Nafta — LNG Terminal, Brussels, C(2013) 7884 final, OJ C 161, 2016, p. 1; and

—

order the Commission to pay all costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of procedural rules contained in Article 108(2) TFEU, in Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and of good administration, because, despite the serious difficulties involved in assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the State aid measures at issue, the Commission solely relied on a preliminary examination of the State aid measures, whereas, in view of those serious difficulties, the Commission was under an obligation to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, because the Commission does not apply correctly the criteria of assessment as set out in Recital 135 of the contested decision, whereas,

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 106(2) TFEU, of the SGEI Framework (2) and of the general principles such as equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations, as well as of the procurement rules contained in Directive 2004/18 (3), and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18, because the Commission wrongfully applied the SGEI Framework, in accepting a direct entrustment of KN for a period of 55 years with a profit corresponding to the project internal rate of return, whereas,

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/15

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 20 May 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 13 July 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decisions of May 2016 and 13 July 2016 infringe the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision.

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.

The applicant claims, in that regard, that the exceptions to the transparency requirement to which Article 4(3) and (1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 refers are not applicable in the present case.

Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons, as well as an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay de costs.

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

—

annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/17

—

primarily, annul the contested decision;

—

in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on Pometon;

—

order the defendant to repay any sums paid by the applicant in complying with the contested decision during the proceedings and to reimburse any other costs borne by the applicant in complying with that decision;

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal fees and any other costs and charges connected with the present proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of a fair trial, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence, as the Commission ascribed specific conduct to Pometon in the context of Decision C(2014) 2074 final of 2 April 2014 (‘the settlement decision’), adopted in respect of Ervin Industries Inc. and Ervin Amasteel, Winoa SA and WHA Holding SAS, Metalltechnik Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG and Eisenwerk Wurth GmbH (‘the other parties’), and thus took the contested decision without having had the opportunity impartially to assess, free from any constraints, Pometon’s position or the arguments put forward by that company in its defence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons, and infringement of the rights of the defence and the burden of proof, as the Commission ascribed to the applicant, without evidence, participation in an alleged cartel in which it did not, in fact, participate.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, errors of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation, and manifest illogicality, as the Commission found that the conduct attributed to Pometon had as its object a restriction of competition.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, failure to state reasons and to conduct a proper investigation, failure to have due regard for the burden of proof as regards the duration of the applicant’s presumed participation in the alleged cartel and, as a result, infringement of Articles 23(2), 25(1) and 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as the Commission imposed a financial penalty on the applicant even though it was time-barred.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a total failure to state reasons and infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in fixing the amount of the fine when adjustments are made to the basic amount pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/19

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 536 912 representing the financial losses suffered as a result of sunk investments made in respect of visits prior to the award of public contracts, which awards were carried out fraudulently;

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 2 092 650 for loss of profit in respect of the public contracts which AEIM would have obtained had they been awarded fairly and without corruption;

—

order the defendant to reimburse Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 85 000 in respect of the costs and fees of the lawyer that he was obliged to pay for conducting his defence, as a result of corruption on the part of the European official;

—

order the defendant to pay to Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 150 000 in respect of non-material damage;

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM compensatory interest on all those amounts from December 2005, being the end of the period of infringement;

—

order the defendant to reimburse lawyers’ costs and fees in respect of the present proceedings representing the sum of EUR 75 000;

—

order the defendant to pay default interest from the date on which judgment is delivered;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/20

—

annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of 86 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5 and AD 7) in the field of audit, published in volume C 171 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 May 2016;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), infringement of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/21

—

annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

—

declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

—

accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament), with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs;

—

accordingly, recognise the non-contractual liability of the European Parliament for the errors committed in the management of the appellant’s reserve list and the obligation to pay compensation for the loss suffered as a result;

—

accordingly, rule in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant in her application at first instance,

—

consequently, order:

1.

First ground, alleging an error of law based on the plea of inadmissibility of further offers of evidence;

2.

Second ground, alleging an error of law in the absence of legal classification of and reasons for the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005 and failure to comply with the annulling judgment of the General Court of the European Union;

3.

Third ground, alleging distortion of the facts as to the mail of EPSO.

4.

Fourth ground, alleging distortion of the content of the letter of 15 October 2007 of the Parliament in relation to the allegation that the appellant was informed as to the destruction of her competition file.

5.

Fifth ground, alleging an error of law as regards the legal classification of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2003.

6.

Sixth ground, alleging failure to comply with the annulling judgment in relation to the calculation of loss.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

—

set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case;

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

1.

First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.

2.

Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence.

3.

Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST.

4.

Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

—

declare the proposed evidence admissible;

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM).

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

—

annul the defendant’s decision concerning the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31 December 2016;

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which, in accordance with those legislative acts, are to be interpreted as meaning that they also give preference to auxiliary development business.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.

In this regard, the applicant argues that if an interpretation of the implementing regulations in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not possible, the implementing regulations are, in that respect, unlawful. Consequently, the defendant’s decision based on those implementing regulations is also unlawful.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/26

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General in the name of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 10 June 2016;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(3) TEU, Article 11(2) TEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) — no open and transparent dialogue

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — partially refused access to documents

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/28

—

declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded;

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded,

—

annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

—

annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

—

in the alternative, set aside the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

—

order the defendant to repay the unjust deductions on the basis of that decision to the applicant;

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

(1)

Order the EIB to pay the applicant a sum equal to eight times his annual salary on the basis of Article 33a of the Staff Regulations and Article 9.1.1 of the Administrative provisions applicable to the staff;

(2)

Annul the decision of the EIB of 4 June 2015 closing the applicant’s Optional Supplementary Provident Scheme (OSPS) account with effect from 28 February 2015 and order the EIB to pay the applicant:

(3)

Order the EIB to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered;

(4)

Order the EIB to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/31

—

Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision;

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/31

—

annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 18 February 2015 informing her that her application for the role of secretary (No EPSO/ASTSC/01/14) was rejected because of the fact that the applicant was not in possession of the diploma and professional experience giving her access to the competition concerned;

—

annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 17 September 2015 informing her of the rejection of her application for review and confirming the decision of 18 February 2015;

—

annul, as far as necessary, the specific reply rejecting the complaint of 12 May 2016;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/32

—

Damages in relation to the violation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150 000;

—

Reimbursement of future medical and psychological costs related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress of the applicant, and which is not reimbursed by the EIB Health Insurance Scheme;

—

Reimbursement of medical and psychological costs to date related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress, and which is not reimbursed by the IB Health Insurance Scheme;

—

Repayment of the applicant’s legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 30 000.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/32

—

Annul the decision of 27 October 2015 by which the Human Resources DG of the European Commission adopted implementing measures in respect of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015, F-119/14 FE v Commission;

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 May 2016 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the claim made by the applicant against the abovementioned decision;

—

Order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm, that amount being set provisionally;

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/33

—

annul AIPN’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2015 promotion exercise;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/33

—

Annul the decision of 6 November 2015 by which the Appointing Authority took the final decision to fix the amount transferred to the EU Pension Scheme at EUR 135 955,38 instead of EUR 155 237,25;

—

Order the defendant to compensate the loss of EUR 10 739,28 incurred to the applicant as a result of the breach of sound administration by the Commission services;

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 1 000 — to the applicant for the moral damages suffered as a result of the final contested decision;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

10.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35