(2012/C 138/01)

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

OJ C 133, 5.5.2012

Past publications

OJ C 126, 28.4.2012

OJ C 118, 21.4.2012

OJ C 109, 14.4.2012

OJ C 89, 24.3.2012

OJ C 80, 17.3.2012

OJ C 73, 10.3.2012

These texts are available on:

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

(Case C-59/12)

(2012/C 138/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law

Respondent on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 2(d), of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the action of a statutory sickness fund in making (misleading) statements to its members concerning the disadvantages that those members would suffer were they to move to another statutory sickness fund can also constitute an act by a trader in the form of a business-to-consumer commercial practice?

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 16 February 2012 — Transportes Jordi Besora, S.L. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalitat de Catalunya

(Case C-82/12)

(2012/C 138/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Transportes Jordi Besora, S.L.

Defendants: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalitat de Catalunya

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

(2)  Case C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-86/12)

(2012/C 138/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative (Luxembourg)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Questions referred

Is Article 20 TFEU — if necessary, read in conjunction with Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or with one or more of those provisions read separately or in conjunction — to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing a third-country national, with sole responsibility for his or her infants who are citizens of the European Union, residence in the Member State of residence of the children, where they have been living with that person since birth, without having that nationality, while refusing the third-country national a residence permit, or even a work permit?

Are such decisions to be regarded as being in the nature of decisions depriving those children, in their country of residence, in which they have lived since birth, of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the European Union also in the situation where their other direct ascendant, with whom they have never shared family life, is resident in another Member State of the European Union, of which that person is a national?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration

(Case C-87/12)

(2012/C 138/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

Defendant: Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration

Question referred

To what extent does the fact of being a citizen of the Union and the related right to reside in the country of which a Union citizen is a national, as provided for by Article 20 of the TFEU, along with the rights, guarantees and obligations laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in particular and insofar as is relevant, in Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34, confer a right to family reunification upon a sponsor who is a citizen of the Union and wishes to bring about, in the country in which he resides and of which he holds the nationality, the reunification with himself of his mother and father and two of his brothers, all of whom are third-country nationals, where he has not exercised his right to free movement and has not resided in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2012 — Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

(Case C-96/12)

(2012/C 138/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto

Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

Question referred

In a road-traffic accident involving a motor vehicle and a minor riding a bicycle, in which the cyclist suffers personal and material damage, is the exclusion or reduction of compensation for such damage where the damage-causing event is due to the conduct of the cyclist contrary to [European Union] law and, in particular, to Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Directive (2005/14/EC) (4) (all relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice [of the European Union] concerning the circumstances in which compensation on the basis of compulsory motor vehicle insurance may be limited?

(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

(4)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-99/12)

(2012/C 138/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurofit SA

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Question referred

Is there a case of force majeure within the meaning of Regulation No 3665/87, laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, (1) where the competent authorities fail to provide requested information, or deliberately communicate erroneous information to an economic operator, thereby distorting its assessment of the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud?

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker

(Case C-104/12)

(2012/C 138/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Wolfram Becker

Questions referred

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Action brought on 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-114/12)

(2012/C 138/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission

(Case C-115/12 P)

(2012/C 138/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(1)of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) by categorising the tax relief granted to the partners, who are natural persons, of the general commercial partnerships which invested in the public works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers (Buccaneer’s Creek), as a direct subsidy for the purposes of that provision.

By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief measures could be categorised as subsidies for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC.

By the second part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief was direct for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC since that relief was granted specifically for the purposes of the works contract in question, although it was not granted to the developer, contractor, operator or owner of the establishment in question.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by distorting the content of the contested decision and substituting its own reasoning for that of the Commission. According to the French Government, the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision by taking the view that the Commission took the overall aims and functions of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, and not the nature of the works carried out, as its basis in determining whether the works contract for the renovation and extension of that holiday village was covered by Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC.

By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by categorising the works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, as a contract relating to building work for a facility intended for sports, recreation and leisure within the meaning of that provision.

By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure in Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted broadly, as not being restricted to facilities which seek to meet the traditional needs of public authorities, that is to say the collective needs of users.

By the second branch of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of works contracts for the purposes of Article 2 of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted independently of the concept of public works contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that directive and that, consequently, the Commission did not infringe Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by finding that the works contract at issue in the present case was covered by that provision although, according to the French Government, that contract was not of direct economic interest to the contracting authority.

(1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State

(Case C-116/12)

(2012/C 138/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Trimeles Protodikeio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA

Defendant: Greek State

Questions referred

Appeal brought on 9 March 2012 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10 Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

(Case C-132/12 P)

(2012/C 138/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener and E. Henny, advocaten, and L. Hancher, university teacher)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)  Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations

Appeal brought on 9 March 2012 by Stichting Woonlinie and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-202/10 Stichting Woonlinie and Others v European Commission

(Case C-133/12 P)

(2012/C 138/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: P. Glazener and E. Henny, advocaten, and L. Hancher, university teacher)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)  Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

(Case C-134/12)

(2012/C 138/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea (the Tulcea Inspectorate of Police))

Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

Questions referred

Appeal brought on 26 March 2012 by Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 January 2012 in Case T-407/09 Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH v European Commission

(Case C-145/12 P)

(2012/C 138/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Dammann de Chapto, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the order of the General Court of 9 January 2012 in Case T-407/09, by which that court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by the applicant (now the appellant) for (i) the annulment of the Commission’s decision, claimed to be contained in a letter dated 29 July 2009, in which it states that certain contracts concluded by the applicant on the sale of apartments in the context of the privatisation of public apartments in Neubrandenburg did not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC, and (ii) a declaration that the Commission failed to act, within the meaning of Article 232 EC, since it did not give its opinion on those contracts in accordance with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

The appellant essentially raises four grounds in support of its appeal:

Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-148/12)

(2012/C 138/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 24 December 2010.

(1)  OJ 2008 L 345, p. 62.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-243/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, subsequently by T. Nowakowski, then by M. Dowgielewicz, and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová and M. Kianička, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14), in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-247/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/18)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented initially by J. Čorba and subsequently by B. Ricziová, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Tokár, agents)

Interveners in support of the Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, and finally by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, agents) and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 123, p. 14), in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-248/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/19)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented: initially by T. Boček, and subsequently by: M. Smolek, acting as Agents)

Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski; subsequently by: M. Dowgielewicz; and finally by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-262/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, E. Matulionytė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission

(Case T-336/07) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Spanish markets for access to broadband internet - Decision declaring an infringement of Article 82 EC - Price-fixing - Margin squeeze - Definition of the markets - Dominant position - Abuse - Calculation of the margin squeeze - Effects of the abuse - Competence of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Subsidiarity - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation - Principle of sound administration - Fines)

(2012/C 138/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then F. González Díaz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: France Telecom España, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers); Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) (Madrid) (represented by: L. Pineda Salido and I. Cámara Rubio, lawyers); and European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Wokingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Di Stefano and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3196 final, of 4 July 2007, relating to proceedings under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-398/07) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish broadband internet access markets - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Price-fixing - Margin squeeze - Sincere cooperation - Ultra vires application of Article 82 EC - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations)

(2012/C 138/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3196 final of 4 July 2007 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Rehbein v OHIM — Dias Martinho (OUTBURST)

(Case T-214/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OUTBURST - Earlier national word mark OUTBURST - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2012/C 138/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG (Glinde, Germany) (represented by: T. Lampel, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Carlos Dias Martinho (Le Plessis-Trévise, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1261/2007-2) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG and, on the other hand, Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Carlos Dias Martinho.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-296/08) (1)

(Aid granted under the INTI programme - Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary - Errors of assessment)

(2012/C 138/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by U.Claus and subsequently by S. Reichmann and L.-J- Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Simon, and subsequently S. Grünheid, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of the costs borne by the applicant in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

(Case T-41/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Bebio - Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA - Partial refusal of registration - 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 138/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co. KG (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented: initially by I. Valdelomar Serrano and subsequently by R. Mottola and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2008 (Case R 1790/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé, S.A. and Hipp & Co KG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Ryanair v European Commission

(Case T-123/09) (1)

(State aid - Loan granted to an airline company and capable of being counted as own capital - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Sale of assets of an airline company - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Actions for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Jurisdiction - Duty to state reasons)

(2012/C 138/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic, (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, lawyers); and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Fiumicino, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/155/EC of 12 November 2008, concerning the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to the airline company Alitalia (C 26/08 (ex NN 31/08)) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), and the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008, concerning State Aid (N 510/2008, OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6) — Italy — Sale of the assets of Alitalia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)

(Case T-417/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS - Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No injury to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2012/C 138/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-111/10) (1)

(ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational Programme seeking modernisation of the economic fabric in Portugal - Absence of precise and verifiable binding objectives - Legitimate expectations)

(2012/C 138/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and by N. Mimoso Ruiz, P. Moura Pinheiro and J. Silva Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Steiblytė and G. Braga da Cruz and subsequently A. Steiblytė and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10624 of 21 December 2009 reducing the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to Portugal in respect of the Operational Programme ‘Modernisation of the economic fabric’, CCI: 1994 PT 16 1 PO 004 (ex ERDF ref. 94.12.09.004) by Commission Decision C (94)464/3 of 4 March 1994 authorising financial assistance from the ERDF.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament

(Case T-190/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)

(2012/C 138/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kathleen Egan (Athboy, Ireland) and Margaret Hackett (Borris-in-Ossory, Ireland) (represented by: K. Neary, Solicitor, C. MacEochaidh, SC, and J. Goode, Barrister)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and D. Moore, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by H. Kranenborg and H. Hijmans, and subsequently by H. Kranenborg and I. Chatelier, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicants the access sought to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — You-Q BV v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE)

(Case T-369/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks)

(2012/C 138/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: You-Q BV, formerly Handicare Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van Roeyen)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apple Corps Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT - Prior Community word mark CALCILAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal of registration)

(2012/C 138/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis; subsequently by: R. Manea; and finally by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)

(Case T-242/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - International registration - Request for territorial extension of protection - Figurative mark 3D eXam - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 138/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2011 (Case R 2361/2010-2) relating to a territorial extension to the European Union of the protection of the international registration of the figurative mark 3D eXam

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

Order of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

(Case T-453/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Devolved administration - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Belfast, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor, and D. Wyatt QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van den Wyngaert, P. Rossi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6)

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12)

(2012/C 138/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

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: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-117/12)

(2012/C 138/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Anonimos Etairia Antiprosopion, Emporiou kai Viomikhanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns liability of the Commission under (a) contract No 215952 for the carrying out of the project ‘A soPhisticatEd multi-paRametric system FOR the continuous effective assessment and Monitoring of motor status in Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases (PERFORM)’ and (b) contract No 215754 for the carrying out of the project ‘Open architecture for Accessible Services Integration and Standardisation (OASIS)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU.

Specifically, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission suspended the payments to the applicant without being entitled to do so and in breach of the foregoing contracts and of the principle of good faith. For that reason, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission must be obliged to pay to it the sum of EUR 637 117,17 in respect of the PERFORM project, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 5 of Clause II.5 of Annex II to the principal contract, and second, that it must be acknowledged that the applicant does not have to return the sum of EUR 56 390,00 which it received in respect of the OASIS project.

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-118/12)

(2012/C 138/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Anonimos Etairia Antiprosopion, Emporiou kai Viomikhanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns liability of the Commission under contract No 045459 for the carrying out of the project ‘PERceptive Spaces promoting iNdependent Aging (PERSONA)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU.

Specifically, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission suspended payment to it without being entitled to do so and in breach of the foregoing contract and of the principle of good faith. For that reason, the applicant submits that the Commission must pay to it the sum of EUR 6 752,74, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 7 of Clause II.28 of Annex II to the principal contract.

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-125/12)

(2012/C 138/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Strobl v Commission

(Case F-56/05) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading under the new, less favourable rules - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equality - Age discrimination)

(2012/C 138/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Strobl (Greifenberg-Beuern, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm et I. Šulce, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 28 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-260/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Commission

(Case F-70/05) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment - Successful candidate in a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised afterwards - Grading under new, less favourable rules)

(2012/C 138/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised after that date, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 35 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-288/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Parliament

(Case F-93/05) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment - Recruitment and simultaneous transfer to another institution - Grading under new, less favourable rules - Admissibility of the action - Interest in bringing an action - Action out of time)

(2012/C 138/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and L.G. Knudsen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials) and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005, p. 15 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-365/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Mohamed Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union

(Case F-18/09) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Classification in grade - Local staff appointed as officials - Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 3 of the annex to the CEOS - Promotion exercise for 2008 - Consideration of comparative merits of officials attached to the career stream AST - Procedure based on staff reports 2005/2006 - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)

(2012/C 138/41)

Language of the case:French

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Juvyns v Council

(Case F-20/09) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2008 promotion procedure - Comparative examination of merit - Procedure based on 2005/2006 annual staff reports - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)

(2012/C 138/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Juvyns (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and G. Kimberley, and subsequently by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Marsili v Commission

(Case F-19/10) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Evaluation of the oral test - Composition of the selection board)

(2012/C 138/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Letizia Marsili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AST/51/08, and for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 57.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2011 — Begue and Others v Commission

(Case F-27/10) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Staff entitled to an allowance for regular stand-by duty - Article 55 and Article 56b of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 495/77)

(2012/C 138/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Christian Begue and Others (Marcy, France) (represented by: A. Woimant, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing the applicants payment with retroactive effect of the allowance for standby duty referred to in Article 56b of the Staff Regulations

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 58.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 —  VE (*1) v Commission

(Case F-28/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Habitual residence prior to taking up duties)

(2012/C 138/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VE (*1) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision putting an end to the payment of the expatriation allowance previously paid to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 58.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

(Case F-72/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 29(1)(a) and (b) of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Statement of reasons)

(2012/C 138/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: da Silva Tenreiro (Kraiinem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents)

Re:

(1) Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ of the DG ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ and the decision appointing the new Director; (2) Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the procedure for filling the post of Director of DG JLS.F ‘Security’ and the decision to appoint the new Director.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 49.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Kimman v Commission

(Case F-74/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Civil servants - Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2009 appraisal - Classification in a level of performance - Decision awarding promotion points - Appraisal report - Opinion of the ad hoc group - Infringement of the duty to give reasons - Plea raised of its own motion - Burden of proof)

(2012/C 138/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eugène Émile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and P. Pecho, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s staff report for 2008

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 63.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — AJ v Commission

(Case F-80/10)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons)

(2012/C 138/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AJ (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2011 — Praskevicius v Parliament

(Case F-81/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Merit points - Consideration of comparative merits - Statement of reasons)

(2012/C 138/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vidas Praskevicius (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for the 2009 promotion exercise and claim for compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ 2010 C 301, p. 66.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Bovagnet v Commission

(Case F-89/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Education costs - Definition)

(2012/C 138/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: François-Carlos Bovagnet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to reimburse fully the education costs in respect of the applicant’s children.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010, p. 61.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — AM v Parliament

(Case F-100/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the accidental cause of a stroke - Medical committee - Principle of collegiality)

(2012/C 138/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AM (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to regard the stroke suffered by the applicant on 5 March 2006 as an accident within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Art. 2 of the JSIS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p.37.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2012 — AT v EACEA

(Case F-113/10) (1)

(Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Evaluation report - Definitive nature - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Early termination of fixed-term employment contract on ground of incompetence - Review by the courts - Manifest error of assessment)

(2012/C 138/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AT (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: EACEA (represented by: F. Couplan and D. Homann, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 June to 31 December 2008; second, for annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to terminate the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract before its due date; and, third, for compensation for damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ 2011 C 72, p. 35.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Bowles, Larue and Whitehead v ECB

(Case F-114/10) (1)

(Staff case - Staff of the ECB - General adjustment to salaries - Method of calculation - Provisional data - Economic and financial crisis - Special circumstances - Act adversely affecting an official - Pay slip - Provisional act)

(2012/C 138/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Carlos Bowles, Emmanuel Larue and Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary slips for January 2010 and the following months in so far as they apply a salary increase of 2 % as a result of the 2010 salary adjustment procedure and compensation for the material loss suffered by the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 37.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Di Tullio v Commission

(Case F-119/10) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Professional soldier - Completion of a period of territorial command - Refusal)

(2012/C 138/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of OLAF’s services refusing to grant the applicant leave for national service pursuant to Article 18 CEOS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 66.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Michael Heath v ECB

(Case F-121/10) (1)

(Civil Service - ECB Staff - Pension scheme - Pension plan - Annual pension increase - Harmonised index of consumer prices - Opinion of pension plan actuary - Consultation of staff committee - Consultation of oversight committee - Right to negotiate by collective agreement)

(2012/C 138/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: P. Embley and E. Carlini, agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s pension slips for January 2010 and the following months, in so far as they apply a pension increase of 0.6% following the 2010 pension adjustment exercise, and compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 67.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2012 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission

(Case F-123/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Temporary staff - Internal competitions - Conditions for admission - Professional experience acquired after obtaining the diploma - Diploma - Qualifications obtained before obtaining the diploma - Equivalence)

(2012/C 138/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Giovanni Bancale (Waterloo, Belgium) and Roberto Buccheri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the Selection Boards in Competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 not to admit the applicants to the competitions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 67.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — BD v Commission

(Case F-36/11) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Non-extension of employment contract - Article 11a of the Staff Regulations - Conflict of interest - Relationship of trust - Article 12b of the Staff Regulations - Outside activity - Presumption of innocence)

(2012/C 138/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BD (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its end date and, hence, for reinstating the applicant in his previous functions with effect from 1 November 2010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 22.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Caminiti v Commission

(Case F-71/09) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Action manifestly unfounded - Entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations - Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Classification - Multiplication factor - Promotion points)

(2012/C 138/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paolo Caminiti (Tubize, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the defendant’s decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 and, consequently, the reinstatement of the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1,071151.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009, p. 17.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-21/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Illegality - Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in the case - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2012/C 138/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the fact that the defendant sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer who no longer represented him.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010. p. 57.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission

(Case F-32/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Reimbursement of expenses - Installation allowance - Installation with family at the place of employment - Recovery of undue payments - Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2012/C 138/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christian Wilk (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of decisions ordering recovery of one half of the installation allowance paid to the applicant following his divorce, and an application for damages

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 60.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — AD v Commission

(Case F-46/10) (1)

(No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 138/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AD (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant the household allowance on the ground that the applicant and his partner have access to legal marriage in a Member State

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 246, 11/09/2010, p. 41.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pedeferri and Others v Commission

(Case F-57/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)

(2012/C 138/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Stefano Pedeferri (Mornago, Italy) and Others (represented by: G. Vistoli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Subject-matter of the case

Application for recognition of the applicants’ status as servants

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 36.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — Barthel, Reiffers and Massez v Court of Justice

(Case F-59/10) (1)

(Civil Service - Preliminary issues - Plea of inadmissibility - Complaint out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Yvette Barthel (Arlon, Belgium), Marianne Reiffers (Olm, Luxembourg) and Lieven Massez (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A. V. Placco, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the claim by the applicants for payment of the allowance for continuous work or shiftwork provided for in the first indent of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976, determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof (OJ 1976 L 38, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 260, 25/09/2010, p. 28.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages relating to the taxation of costs - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reimburse two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-41/06.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.1.2010, p. 74.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-69/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Illegality - Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in that case - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2012/C 138/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that the defendant had sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer who did not yet represent him in that case.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 75.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — AP v Court of Justice

(Case F-107/10)

(Civil service - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AP (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice which, although granting the applicant the entitlement to household allowance from 1 July 2009, only makes the applicant eligible for that allowance from 1 November 2009 and, secondarily, application for damages.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2011 — Filice and others v Court of Justice

(Case F-108/10) (1)

(Civil service - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 138/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Filice and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco, agent)

Re:

Application to annul the defendant’s decisions, set out in the applicants’ salary slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 65.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Zaffino v Commission

(Case F-18/11)

(Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with the preliminary procedure)

(2012/C 138/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pasqualino Zaffino (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Galvan v Commission

(Case F-19/11)

(Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)

(2012/C 138/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Galvan (Besano, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s request to be granted the status of official or servant of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Bracalente v Commission

(Case F-20/11)

(Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with preliminary procedure)

(2012/C 138/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gianpaolo Bracalente (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pirri v Commission

(Case F-21/11)

(Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or other servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - failure to observe the pre-contentious procedure)

(2012/C 138/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Gerado Pirri (Travedona Monate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

The applicant’s claim for status of official or other servant of the European Union

Operative part of the order

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2011 — Wendelboe v Commission

(Case F-85/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Refusal to promote an official - Transfer between institutions during the promotion year in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Complaint - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2012/C 138/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Wendelboe (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bercheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion year.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.

Action brought on 27 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-12/12)

(2012/C 138/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request for classification at grade AD 11 with retroactive effect as at 1 January 2010 and compensation for damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 3 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-13/12)

(2012/C 138/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 4 February 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-14/12)

(2012/C 138/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decisions not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Action brought on 10 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-16/12)

(2012/C 138/76)

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 decision to change unilaterally the applicant’s posting.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 8 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-17/12)

(2012/C 138/77)

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

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-18/12)

(2012/C 138/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

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

Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-19/12)

(2012/C 138/79)

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 note concerning the applicant’s administrative status and for compensation for damage.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 15 February 2012 — ZZ v EIGE

(Case F-20/12)

(2012/C 138/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reassign the applicant from the position of Head of Operations to a Team Leader position not requiring managerial skills.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17th February 2012 — ZZ v Commission and CEPOL

(Case F-22/12)

(2012/C 138/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Police College

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s demand to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 20 February 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-23/12)

(2012/C 138/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for the annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/204/10 refusing to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 27 February 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-24/12)

(2012/C 138/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision adopted by the President of the European Parliament reassigning the applicant within the same Directorate-General of the Parliament from the post of Head of Unit to a post of Advisor to the Director of a Directorate and the claim for compensation for psychological harassment.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 21 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-25/12)

(2012/C 138/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Pradal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant the daily subsistence allowance.

Form of order sought by the applicant

Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-30/12)

(2012/C 138/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 7 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-32/12)

(2012/C 138/86)

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-56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of 9 June 2011.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ZZ v BEREC

(Case F-35/12)

(2012/C 138/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant following the pre-recruitment medical examination as from his entry into service and the decision to reject the applicant’s objection.

Forms of order sought by the applicant

Action brought on 19th March 2012 — ZZ v FRA

(Case F-38/12)

(2012/C 138/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the Appellant's contract and of the decision to transfer the Appellant to another department and the compensation of both moral and material prejudices.

Form of order sought