title: Case C-259/06: Order of the President of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-259/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/59)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case C-442/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — National legislation concerning existing landfill sites — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-442/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - National legislation concerning existing landfill sites - Incorrect transposition)
   (2008/C 128/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. Fiengo, avocat)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — National legislation which does not comply with the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Legislative Decree No 36 of 13 January 2003, as amended, which transposes Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste into national law,

                           —

                           in so far as that legislative decree does not provide for the application of Articles 2 to 13 of Directive 1999/31 to landfills authorised subsequent to the date of expiry of the period for transposition of that directive and prior to the date of the entry into force of the legislative decree, and

                           —

                           in so far as it does not secure the transposition of Article 14(d)(i) of that directive,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 14 of Directive 1999/31;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-64/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  29 November 2005  — Heubach v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Cartel — Zinc phosphate market — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Action for annulment — Objection of illegality — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Gravity of the infringement — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2005 — Heubach v Commission
   (Case T-64/02) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartel - Zinc phosphate market - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Action for annulment - Objection of illegality - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Gravity of the infringement - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Statement of reasons)
   (2006/C 36/63)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Dr Hans Heubach GmbH & Co. KG (Langelsheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag and G. Bauer, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted by H. J. Freund, lawyer)
   Application for
   partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/437/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) (OJ 2003 L 153, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.


title: Case T-593/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 December 2011 — Al-Chihabi v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — No urgency — No serious and irreparable damage)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 December 2011 — Al-Chihabi v Council
   (Case T-593/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - No urgency - No serious and irreparable damage)
   2012/C 49/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fares Al-Chihabi (Aleppo, Syria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, in essence, the suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), to the extent that those measures affect the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-304/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Hoek Loos NV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartels — Dutch market for industrial and medical gases — Price fixing — Calculation of fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Hoek Loos NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-304/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Dutch market for industrial and medical gases - Price fixing - Calculation of fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)
   (2006/C 212/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Hoek Loos NV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.J. Feenstra and B.F. Van Harinxma thoe Slooten, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment in part of Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/207/EC final of 24 July 2002 relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 81 EC (case COMP/E-3/36.700 — Industrial and medical gases) (OJ 2003, L 84, p. 1) and, alternatively, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-162/99: Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/21
According to the applicant, because of the classic nature of the          the Staff Committee of 22 October 1997 and of paragraph 2
contested aid and the fact that it is clearly operating and rescue        of Article 2 of the General Notice for Election published by
aid, the said period of two months may be considered                      the electoral office on 27 January 1999, inasmuch as 21 per-
reasonable.                                                               sons not qualifying as electors under the applicable rules voted
                                                                          in the contested elections and those votes may have affected
                                                                          the results as regards the allocation of the number of seats on
(1) OJ C 368 of 23.12.94.                                                 the various lists.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997.
                                                                          They also plead infringement of the first paragraph of Article 1
                                                                          and Article 4 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                          second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 6 of the Rules
                                                                          laying down the composition and operation of the Staff
                                                                          Committee, of Article 14(b) and (c) of the procedure adopted
                                                                          by the general meeting on 19 January 1999 for the election of
                                                                          the Brussels section of the Staff Committee, and of the second
Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                  paragraph of Article 2 and the second paragraph of Article 4
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the                       of the General Notice for Election in that 27 postal votes
         Commission of the European Communities                           arrived out of time because the electors concerned received
                                                                          their ballot papers late.
                          (Case T-162/99)
                                                                          Lastly, the applicants plead infringement of the final paragraph
                          (1999/C 281/40)                                 of Article 14 of the Rules laying down the composition and
                                                                          operation of the Staff Committee and of Article 32 of the
                                                                          internal rules of the Brussels local staff committee of 14 April
                                                                          1990, in that the appointments to the Central Staff Committee
                    (Language of the case: French)                        and to the other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and
                                                                          administrative bodies were made by a local staff committee
An action against the Commission of European Communities                  constituted in accordance with the results of elections which
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            were vitiated by irregularities. In the applicants’ view, those
Communities on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                     irregularities may have altered the distribution of seats as
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux, residing in Brussels,            between the different lists, and may consequently have altered
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  the distribution of seats on the Central Staff Committee and in
address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue            the other administrative bodies or organs set up under the
Heinrich Heine.                                                           Staff Regulations appointments to which were to be made by
                                                                          the local staff committee.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to
    the Staff Committee of the local Brussels section and the
    various appointments and proposals for appointments to
    the Central Staff Committee and to the other organs set up
    under the Staff Regulations and administrative bodies                 Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the
    made by that committee following those elections;                                     Council of the European Union
— in so far as may be necessary: first, take note of the refusal
    by the Commission to annul the aforementioned elections                                        (Case T-164/99)
    and declare that the Staff Committee of the local Brussels
    section, constituted in accordance with the results of the                                    (1999/C 281/41)
    elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, as proclaimed
    by the electoral office on 23 March 1999, has not been
    validly constituted and, consequently, that the appoint-                                 (Language of the case: French)
    ments and or proposals for appointments made by that
    committee to the Central Staff Committee and to the                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
    other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    administrative bodies are invalid; and, second, annul the             Communities on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy, residing at
    rejection of the complaints lodged by the applicants;                 Grimbergen (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — acknowledge the illegality of the decision of the Council of
                                                                              1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for
The applicants plead, first, infringement of the fourth para-                 the integration of the Schengen Secretarial into the General
graph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations of                    Secretariat of the Council, and consequently annul the
officials, of Article 7 of the Conditions of employment of other              same;
servants of the European Communities, of Articles 4(2) and 6
of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.


1 . 11 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
      Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court                          Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting of
                                                                                7 October 1997
                            ( 97/C 331 /01 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/03 )
                                                                        The Court of Justice of the European Communities
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of                      adopted the following decisions at its meeting of 7 October
Justice of the European Communities by Decision of the                  1997 :
Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
of 29 May 1997 ( ] ), for the period from 7 October 1997                Assignment of Judge Ioannou
to 6 October 2003 , Mr Krateros Ioannou took the oath
before the Court on 6 October 1997.                                     The Court decided to assign Judge Ioannou to the Fourth
                                                                        and Sixth Chambers .
                                                                        Appointment of the Presidents of the Chambers
Following his appointment as Advocate General of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                         In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of
Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the               Procedure, the Court has appointed for a period of one
Member States of 29 May 1997 H, for the period from                     year starting on 7 October 1997:
7 October 1997 to 6 October 2003 , Mr Siegbert Alber
took the oath before the Court on 6 October 1997.                       — Mr Wathelet as President of the First Chamber,
                                                                        — Mr Schintgen as President of the Second Chamber,
(') OJ L 145 , 5 . 6 . 1997, p . 28 .
                                                                        — Mr Gulmann as President of the Third and Fifth
                                                                             Chambers,
                                                                        — Mr Ragnemalm as President of the Fourth and Sixth
                                                                             Chambers .
                                                                        Composition of the Chambers
            Election of the President of the Court                      1 . The composition of the Chambers for the same period
                                                                        has been determined as follows :
                            ( 97/C 331/02 )
                                                                        First Chamber
                                                                        Mr Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
At the meeting on 7 October 1997, the Judges of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities elected, in                Mr Edward, Mr Jann and Mr Sevón, Judges .
accordance with Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure,
Mr Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias as President of the Court              Second Chamber
for the period from 7 October 1997 up to and including
6 October 2000 .                                                        Mr Schintgen, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        Mr Mancini and Mr Hirsch, Judges.
                                                                        Third Chamber


title: Case C-589/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/12

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission
   (Case C-589/15 P)
   (2016/C 007/19)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-450/12 on the action brought on 11 October 2012 against the European Commission for annulment of the latter’s measure of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;

               —

               grant the form of order sought in the abovementioned action;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;

               —

               order the Commission to register the abovementioned initiative in accordance with the law, and order any other measure required by law;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  Defects in the course of the proceedings before the General Court

               The judgment under appeal overlooked entirely, when assessing the action, that the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative concerned exclusively that part of the public debt which is considered ‘abhorrent’.
               The view is incorrectly taken in the grounds of the judgment under appeal that the proposal concerns the entire public debt, without any other distinction or precondition.
               In that respect, the judgment under appeal failed to assess the subject-matter of the case correctly.
               A judgment was delivered on the basis of a misappraisal of the action’s content and of the form of order sought by it.

               2.

                  Infringement of EU law by the General Court, misinterpretation and misapplication of the Treaties and of European legislation

                           (A)

                           Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal held that Articles 122 TFEU and 136 TFEU, relied upon in the application, are not an appropriate legal basis for any financial assistance from the European Union by establishment of a financing mechanism for Member States which are experiencing, or are threatened by, severe financing problems.
                           Under Article 136 TFEU as amended by European Council Decision 2011/199/EU (1) of 25 March 2011 and Articles 4(1) TFEU and 5(2) TFEU, the power of the Member States whose currency is the euro to conclude amongst themselves an agreement relating to the establishment of a stability mechanism and of financial assistance is absolute. The Commission has a particular conferred power and discretion in respect of a proposal to establish such a mechanism under Article 352 TFEU, as necessary action to attain the objectives of the Treaties, regarding stability in the Euro area.

                           (B)

                           Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that there is nothing that supports the conclusion or proves that adoption of the principle of the state of necessity would have the effect of strengthening the coordination of budgetary discipline or would come under the economic policy guidelines which the Council is empowered to set out for the purpose of the proper functioning of economic and monetary union.
                           On the contrary, on a correct interpretation and correct application, the measure sought, non-payment of the abhorrent debt, is designed exclusively to strengthen the budgetary discipline of the Member States and to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union (Article 136(1) TFEU).

                           (C)

                           Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal ruled out the application of Article 122 TFEU as an appropriate legal basis for adoption of the principle of the state of necessity in EU legislation.
                           The Commission has the power, under Article 352 TFEU, to submit a proposal to the Council to recommend either to the Member States assistance in solidarity under Article 122(1) TFEU or the financial assistance of the European Union under Article 122(2) TFEU for the Member State that is in serious difficulties for which it is not to blame.

                           (D)

                           Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that it must be found that the Commission complied with the obligation to state reasons as regards adoption of the contested decision rejecting the request to register the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative. The reasons for rejection stated in the contested measure are insufficient and defective. They are contrary to the duty pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 to state full reasons.

                           (E)

                           Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal maintains that, if the principle of the state of necessity exists as a rule of international law, that is not sufficient to form the basis for a legislative initiative on the part of the Commission. International law and the principles of international law constitute sources of law for the European Union. As such they are directly incorporated into and applied in EU law, without more. The Commission has a right of proposal with regard to the application of the foregoing principles of higher-ranking law, even without specific provision in the Treaties should it be considered that the latter is lacking.

                           (F)

                           Misapplying and misinterpreting the law, the judgment under appeal ordered the appellant to pay the Commission’s costs. Had the law been appraised correctly, in accordance with the foregoing, the action would have been upheld and the Commission would have been ordered to pay the relevant costs.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 91, p. 1.


title: Case T-65/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLSmidth v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLSmidth v Commission
   (Case T-65/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability)
   2012/C 118/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (Valby, Denmark) (represented by: J.-E. Svensson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLSmidth & Co. A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991;

               2.

               Sets the amount for payment of which FLSmidth & Co. is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and FLSmidth & Co. each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-447/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of  18 November 2005  in Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of 18 November 2005 in Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects
   (Case C-447/05)
   (2006/C 48/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 18 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe SA and Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:
   ‘Is Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) invalid as being contrary to Article 24 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) in that it has the result that a television receiver manufactured in Poland in the circumstances described in the proceedings is held to be of Korean origin?’

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


C 101/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
       Member State which, in response to the infringement by                      particular, to provide an opportunity for persons involved
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure                        in an action subsequently brought before the civil courts
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on                        — those considering bringing such an action, those who
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members                   anticipate that the action will be brought against them,
       and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and                  or third parties otherwise concerned by such an action
       a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,                   — to obtain advance clarification of the facts (with which
       whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment                   they are perhaps not entirely familiar), so as to enable
       upon complaint being made, together with more serious                       them better to assess their position, particularly also with
       and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements               regard to the issue of identification of the party against
       occasioning loss to members and creditors?                                  whom proceedings must be instituted?
                                                                             —     If so, can the provision in that case constitute a measure
( 1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-                     within the meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Conven-
     ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests           tion?
     of members and others, are required by Member States of
     companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of
     Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
     equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
     Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
( 2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
     Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
     types of companies (OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11).
( 3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on
     the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ
     L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1).                                                      Removal from the register of Case C-435/01 ( 1)
( 4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/
     EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those                                       (2003/C 101/51)
     Directives (OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60).
                                                                             By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-435/01: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by order of that Court of 12 December 2002                         (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV against Unibel
                              Exser BVBA
                            (Case C-104/03)
                            (2003/C 101/50)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-324/02 ( 1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                (2003/C 101/52)
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amster-
dam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam) of 12 December
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV
against Unibel Exser BVBA on the following questions:                        By order of 10 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
—      Does the provision in Article 186 et seq. of the Nether-              from the register of Case C-324/02: Commission of the
       lands Code of Civil Procedure concerning the ‘preliminary             European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
       hearing of witnesses prior to the bringing of proceedings’
       come within the scope of the Brussels Convention in light
       of the fact also that, as provided for in that legislation, it        (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
       seeks not only to enable material evidence to be taken
       from witnesses shortly after the facts in dispute and to
       prevent evidence from being lost but also, and in


title: Case C-101/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — Gentcho Pavlov, Gregor Famira v Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (External relations — Association agreements — National legislation excluding, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, Bulgarian nationals from inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers — Compatibility of that legislation with the prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions, in the EC-Bulgaria Association Agreement)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — Gentcho Pavlov, Gregor Famira v Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien
   (Case C-101/10) (1)

   (External relations - Association agreements - National legislation excluding, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, Bulgarian nationals from inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers - Compatibility of that legislation with the prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions, in the EC-Bulgaria Association Agreement)
   2011/C 269/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gentcho Pavlov, Gregor Famira

      Defendant: Ausschuss der Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Interpretation of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part (OJ 1994 L 358 of 31 December 1994, p. 3) — Prohibition of any discrimination based on nationality as regards working conditions — Compatibility with that article of national rules excluding, before the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Bulgarian nationals from registration on the list of trainee lawyers — Direct effect of that provision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of non-discrimination set out in the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision 94/908/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be interpreted as not having precluded, before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union, legislation of a Member State such as Paragraph 30(1) and (5) of the Austrian Code of Lawyers (Österreichische Rechtsanwaltsordnung), in the version applicable in the main proceedings, under which a Bulgarian national, because of a nationality condition laid down by that legislation, was unable to obtain inclusion on the list of trainee lawyers and, consequently, to obtain a certificate of entitlement to appear in court.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-170/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Mirko De Filippo v Ministero dell'Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Mirko De Filippo v Ministero dell'Interno
      (Case C-170/10)
      (2010/C 161/44)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mirko De Filippo

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case C-512/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 91/440/EEC — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 — Continued absence of financial balance — Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 — Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 — Calculation of the minimum access charge)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-512/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 91/440/EEC - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14 - Continued absence of financial balance - Articles 6(1) and 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440 - Absence of incentives for infrastructure managers - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14 - Calculation of the minimum access charge)
   2013/C 225/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Herrmann, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, K. Bożekowska-Zawisza and M. Laszuk, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: name Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and with Articles 4(2), 6(1) to (3), 7(3), 8(1) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt incentives to encourage the railway infrastructure manager to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the level of access charges, and by permitting the inclusion, in the calculation of charges levied for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities, of costs which cannot be regarded as costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6(2) and 7(3), respectively, of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-227/07: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Production aid intended for tomato processors — Spot checks over sufficient periods — Proportionality)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-227/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Production aid intended for tomato processors - Spot checks over sufficient periods - Proportionality)
   2010/C 346/76
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially T. van Rijn and then F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-57/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/23

         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
   (Case T-57/12)
   2012/C 109/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that by including his name in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

               —

               failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

               —

               failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

               —

               failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and

               —

               infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.


title: Case C-465/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/24

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-465/05)
   (2006/C 60/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, by providing that:

                           —

                           the activity of private security guard can be exercised only after an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic has been sworn;

                           —

                           private security activities can be exercised only after the granting of an authorisation by the Prefect;

                           —

                           the said authorisation has limited territorial validity and the granting thereof is subject to consideration of the number and size of security undertakings already in operation in the territory in question;

                           —

                           private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate;

                           —

                           the personnel of the said undertakings must be individually authorised to perform security activities;

                           —

                           the security undertakings must have a minimum/maximum number of employees to be authorised;

                           —

                           private security undertakings must lodge security at the local Cassa depositi e prestiti (Deposit and Loan Bank);

                           —

                           the prices for private security services are established pursuant to authorisation by the Prefect within specified limits.

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The activity of private security guard does not constitute direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority. The exception laid down in Articles 45 EC and 55 EC, to the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, cannot therefore be extended to such activity.

               1)

               The obligation to swear an oath constitutes an obstacle which is neither justified or proportionate having regard to the purpose, and the type of professional activity, of private security guards. The formal oath makes establishment in and, in general, access to the Italian market in private security services more difficult for Community undertakings, to the extent of completely dissuading occasional providers of such services from providing them.

               2)

               The requirement of a licence for anyone wishing to provide private security services in Italy, without taking into account analogous obligations to which the provider of such services is already subject in the Member State in which he is established, constitutes an unjustified obstacle to the freedom to provide services.

               3)

               A Community undertaking in the same sector which intends to establish itself in Italy and operate in a territory of a certain size must obtain as many licences as provinces in which it intends to carry out its activities (there are 104 provinces in Italy). The competent authority (Prefect) may decline to grant such licences having regard to the number and size of undertakings already operating on the said territory.

               4)

               An undertaking which intends to establish itself in Italy must arrange to have as many premises as licences obtained and provinces covered, even though this is not required for the carrying out of services. Moreover, to lay down an obligation of this kind concerning premises is equivalent to denying the freedom to provide services given that it requires a person providing such services on a transfrontier basis to have an establishment in Italy.

               5)

               In the case of occasional provision of security services, Italian law always requires each employee to be individually authorised to exercise his activity in Italy and does not take into account any control measures to which each sworn private security guard is already subject in his Member State of origin.

               6)

               The licences granted by the Prefect may contain a requirement relating to a minimum/maximum number of employees. Failure to respect such limits entails revocation of the licence. Such provisions constitute an obstacle to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, which is liable in particular to completely preclude access to the market for small undertakings.

               7)

               The obligation to lodge security at the Deposit and Loan Bank imposed on private security undertakings by the Italian law does not take account of obligations that are comparable, as regards their purpose, to which the service provider is already subject in the Member State in which it is established.

               8)

               Restrictions on the freedom to set charges constitute a further obstacle to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. In fact, a new service provider which tries to enter a given market must endeavour to stand out from its competitors and the price of the services is an important factor in procuring clients.


title: Case C-126/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/13

         Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-126/05)
   (2005/C 132/26)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               find that the United Kingdom has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of 22 June 2000 amending Directive 93/104/EC (2) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof;

               2.

               condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.

      (2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-352/12: Order of the Court of 20 June 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Support activities relating to the drawing up of a reconstruction plan for certain parts of the territory of a municipality damaged by an earthquake — Contract concluded between two public entities, one a university — Public entity likely to be classified as an economic operator — Extraordinary circumstances)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/47

         Order of the Court of 20 June 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)) — Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri v Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano
   (Case C-352/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Support activities relating to the drawing up of a reconstruction plan for certain parts of the territory of a municipality damaged by an earthquake - Contract concluded between two public entities, one a university - Public entity likely to be classified as an economic operator - Extraordinary circumstances)
   2013/C 225/81
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

      Defendants: Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo and Comune di Barisciano

      In the presence of: Università degli Studi Chieti Pescara — Dipartimento Scienze e Storia den’ Architettura and Scuola di Archtettura e Design Vittoria (SAD) dell’Università degli Studi di Camerino

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Abruzzo — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Articles 2 and 28 of and Annex II, categories 8 and 12 to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Award of the contract outwith the procedures for the award of contracts laid down by the directive — Contract concluded between two public administrations, under which the service provider is a university and the other party is clearly not of a remunerative nature — Supply of services consisting of the carrying out of studies, analyses and planning for the reconstruction of the historic centre of two municipalities destroyed by an earthquake — Methods of award of the contract justified by specific public interests connected with the earthquake

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, precludes national legislation which authorises the conclusion, without recourse to competition, of a contract by which public entities institute cooperation between themselves where — which it is for the referring court to ascertain — such a contract is not intended to ensure the implementation of a public service task common to those entities, where it is not exclusively governed by considerations and requirements proper to the pursuit of objectives of public interest or where it is such as to place a private service provider in a privileged position compared with its competitors. The fact that such a contract arises in an extraordinary situation can be taken into consideration only in so far as the contracting authority ascertains that the conditions for application of Article 31(1)(c) of that directive are met.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-246/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Insula v Commission (Application for interim measures — Debit notes — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to comply with formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/39

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-246/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Debit notes - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to comply with formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 205/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Marsal and J.-D. Simonet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of two debit notes requiring the repayment of sums of money paid to the applicant under subsidy contracts

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-477/04: Order of the President of the Court of  12 January 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 January 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-477/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/30)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case T-81/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Greece v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational programme falling within Objective No 1 (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk roads’ in Greece — Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties — Rate of financial correction — Commission discretion — Review by the courts)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-81/09) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational programme falling within Objective No 1 (1994-1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk roads’ in Greece - Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties - Rate of financial correction - Commission discretion - Review by the courts)
   2011/C 269/101
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: initially M. Tassopoulou, agent, assisted by C. Meïdanis and E. Lampadarios, lawyers, then P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, agents, assisted by G. Michailopoulos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to Greece, amounting to EUR 30 104 470,47 in respect of the operational programme ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ by Commission Decision C(94) 3579 of 16 December 1994, authorising financial assistance from the ERDF.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to Greece in so far as it provides, first, a correction amounting to EUR 506 303 in respect of the project ‘Isthmos — Galota’ and, second, a correction amounting to EUR 684 343 in respect of the project ‘Polymylos crossroads’ (contract 928)’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and 80 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Stefano Serbini v. Ministry of Foreign Trade (Case C-178/96)

text:
No C 197/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          6 . 7. 96
Registry on 22 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the                Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the United Kingdom
case of Jyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors Canada Dry                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge des sociétés                                            ( Case C-1 80/96 )
de basket-ball on the following question :
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/34 )
Are the rules of a sports federation which prohibit a club
from playing a player in the competition for the first time if          An action against the Commission of the European
he has been engaged after a specified date contrary to the              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Treaty of Rome ( in particular Articles 6 , 48 , 85 and 86 ) in         European Communities on 24 May 1996 by the United
the case of a professional player who is a national of a                Kingdom, represented by Lindsey Nicoll, of the Treasury
Member State of the European Union, notwithstanding the                 Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, assisted by K. P. E.
sporting reasons put forward by the federations to justify              Lasok, QC, and David Anderson, Barrister, with an address
those rules, namely the need to prevent distortion of the               for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14
competitions ?                                                          boulevard Roosevelt.
                                                                        The applicant respectfully submits that:
                                                                        ( a ) Commission Decision 96/239/EEC ( 1 ) should be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministr^tivo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of                          annulled ; alternatively;
that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Stefano Serbini
                 v. Ministry of Foreign Trade                           ( b ) Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239 should be
                                                                               annulled insofar as it applies to :
                         ( Case C- 1 78/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/33 )                                         ( i ) live bovine animals permitted to be exported from
                                                                                the United Kingdom by Decision 94/474/EEC (2 );
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                   and/or
European Communities by order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia ( Lombardy                             ( ii ) the semen and/or embryos of live bovine animals;
Regional Administrative Court ) of 7 November 1 995 ,                                    and/or
received at the Court Registry on 22 May 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefano Serbini v . Ministry                 ( iii ) meat of bovine animals less than 30 months old
of Foreign Trade on the following questions :                                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom or meat from
                                                                                bovine animals certified to come from herds that
1 . Is the purchase of unrefined gold for investment
     purposes covered by the concept of 'capital movements'                              have not experienced any case of BSE and have
     in Article 67 ( 1 ) of the Treaty which was in force until                          not been exposed to any actual or potential source
     31 December 1993 ?                                                                  of feed contaminated with the BSE agent;
                                                                                and/or
2. If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, were the provisions of Directive                                ( iv ) products obtained from bovine animals
     88/361/EEC ( 1 ) applicable to the purchase of unrefined                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are
     gold for investment purposes as at 31 July 1993 and did                             liable to enter the animal feed or human food
     those provisions have direct effect so as to render                                 chains and materials destined for use in medicinal
     inapplicable national provisions of the kind contained in                           products, cosmetics or pharmaceutical products;
     Article 15 of Presidential Decree No 148 of 31 March                                and/or
     1988 ?
                                                                                (v ) gelatin and/or tallow; and/or
 3 . If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, are the provisions of Directive 88/361 /EEC
                                                                                ( vi ) exports to third countries ( save to the extent that
     still applicable following the entry into force of
                                                                                there is a real risk of deflection of trade, where
     Article 73a of the EC Treaty ( added by Article G ( 15 ) of
                                                                                appropriate );
     the Treaty on European Union), according to which 'as
     from 1 January 1994, Articles 67 to 73 shall be replaced
     by Articles 73b, 73c, 73d, 73e, 73f and 73g', or is the             (c ) each of the contested acts should be annulled;
     liberalization of capital movements henceforth
     governed entirely by Articles 73b to 73g ?                          and
 4 . If the answer to the first part of the preceding question is        ( d ) the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of
      in the negative, is Article 73b ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty now                the United Kingdom .
      applicable to the purchase of unrefined gold for
      investment purposes, and does it have direct effect ?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
 (M OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                                                                         In brief, the contested Decision and the contested acts are
                                                                         unlawful for the following reasons:


title: Case T-480/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — SIMSA v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/43

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — SIMSA v Commission
   (Case T-480/07)
   (2008/C 64/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl SIMSA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.


title: Case C-127/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-392/07 Guido Strack v European Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/14

         Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-392/07 Guido Strack v European Commission
   (Case C-127/13 P)
   2013/C 147/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-392/07 in so far as the form of order sought by the applicant was not granted, or was not granted in full;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by the applicant in Case T-392/07;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul also the decision of the President of the General Court of the European Union by which he allocated Case T-392/07 to the Fourth Chamber of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward nine grounds of appeal.

               1.

               Lack of jurisdiction of the formation of the General Court and associated procedural errors and errors of reasoning, as well as the associated infringement of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 12 and 13(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and other rules of law arising from the so-called reallocation to the Chamber in the present proceedings;

               2.

               Breaches of procedure and infringements of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, and breaches of the principles of effective legal protection, the right to a fair hearing and procedural fairness in conjunction with a failure to state reasons and distortion of facts, attributable to: failure to deal with the case under an expedited procedure; unlawful restrictions on the applicant’s ability to comment and refusal to admit a document concerning correction of the minutes; insufficient judicial review of the documents and dismissal of the applicant’s corresponding application for all documents to be examined in camera; distortion of the facts, insufficient judicial review and breach of the principles of the allocation of the burden of proof and of procedural fairness with regard to the question whether the documentation is complete and to the numbers of confirmatory applications actually made pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001; excessive duration of proceedings and unlawful treatment of the corresponding application for compensation;

               3.

               Errors of law, lack of precision and failure to state reasons with regard to the formulation and extension of point 1 of the operative part — and the passages of the judgment underpinning that point — together with distortion of facts, inter alia, by the failure to recognise the applicant’s continued interest in bringing proceedings;

               4.

               Distortion of facts, failure to state reasons and breach of the principles of interpretation with regard to the scope of the applicant’s application for access to the documents in Case T-110/04;

               5.

               Errors of law, distortion of facts and failure to state reasons in connection with the application and interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in conjunction with the rules on data protection;

               6.

               Errors of law, distortion of facts and failure to state reasons in connection with the application and interpretation of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               7.

               Errors of law and failure to state reasons in connection with the rejection of the claim for compensation in the application, in particular breach of the principles of taking evidence and of effective legal protection;

               8.

               Breach of the principle of effective legal protection in the context of the dismissal of an application by the applicant in paragraph 90 of the judgment in Case T-392/07;

               9.

               Errors of law and failure to state reasons in connection with the decision on costs.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 April 1997 in Case T-20/94: Johannes Hartmann v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers having entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Limitation period)

text:
No C 181 / 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
                        of 16 April 1997                                  84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                          application of the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
in Case T-554/93 : Alfred Thomas Edward Saint and                         Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
Christopher Murray v. Council of the European Union                       products sector, as supplemented by Commission
     and Commission of the European Communities (')                       Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying
                                                                          down detailed rules for the application of the
(Action for annulment — Action for damages — Non
contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy —                          additional levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those
Reference quantity — Producers having entered into non
marketing or" conversion undertakings — Compensation                      Regulations did not make provision for the allocation
— Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Legal effects —                           of a reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to
             Admissibility — Limitation period)                           an undertaking given under Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                          No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of
                          ( 97/C 181 /23 )                                premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk
                                                                          products and for the conversion of dairy herds, did
                                                                           not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by
                (Language of the case: English)                            the Member State concerned;
In Case T-554/93 : Alfred Thomas Edward Saint and
                                                                      3 . declares that the period in respect of which the
Christopher Murray, residing at Penrhos, Gwent ( United                   applicants must be compensated for the losses
Kingdom ) and at Naas, Kildare ( Ireland ) respectively,                  sustained as a result of the application of Regulation
represented by Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                           (EEC) No 857/84 is that beginning on 5 August 1987
Amsterdam Bar, and Hendrik J. Bronkhorst, Advocaat                         and ending on 28 March 1989;
with rights of audience before the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, instructed by Burges Salmon, Solicitors,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      4 . orders the parties to forward to the Court, within
Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against
                                                                           12 months of this judgment, the amounts to be paid,
 Council of the European Union ( Agents: Arthur Brautigam
                                                                           established by mutual agreement;
and Michael Bishop ) and Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : initially Gerard Rozet and Xavier
Lewis, subsequently Mr Rozet and Christopher Docksey )
— application for annulment, pursuant to Article 173 of               5 . orders the parties, in the absence of an agreement, to
the EEC Treaty, of Article 8 (2 ) ( a ) and the fourth                     submit to the Court their quantified claims;
paragraph of Article 14 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      6.   reserves the costs.
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
 products temporarily prevented from carrying on their
trade ( OJ No L 196, 1993 , p. 6 ), and application for               (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
compensation, pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the
EEC Treaty, for the losses sustained by the applicants
 owing to the fact that they were prevented from
marketing milk as a result of Council Regulation ( EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p. 13 ), as                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 supplemented by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /                                      of 16 April 1997
 84 of 16 May 1984 ( OJ No L 132, 1984, p. 11 ) — the
 Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended                    in Case T-20/94: Johannes Hartmann v. Council of the
 Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W.              European Union and Commission of the European
 Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura                                          Communities (')
 Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment              (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk
 on 16 April 1997, in which it:                                       — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers
                                                                      having entered into non-marketing or conversion
                                                                      undertakings — Compensation — Regulation (EEC)
 1 . dismisses as inadmissible the claims for annulment of                          No 2187/93 — Limitation period)
     Article 8 (2) (a) and the fourth paragraph of Article 14
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July                                           ( 97/C 181 /24 )
     1 993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain
     producers of milk and milk products temporarily
     prevented from carrying on their trade;                                         (Language of the case: German)
2 . declares that the defendants are bound to make good               In Case T-20/94 : Johannes Hartmann,             residing at
     the damage sustained by the applicants as a result of            Hamminkeln         ( Germany ),      represented by      Bernd
 ---pagebreak---  14 . 6 . 97         1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 181 / 13
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten and               5.    reserves the costs .
Frank Schulze, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
                                                                      (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
Dupong and Guy Konsbruck-Raus, 14a Rue des Bains,
against Council of the European Union ( Agent: Arthur
Brautigam ) and Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Dierk Booß, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
Georg M. Berrisch ), application pursuant to Article 178
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of 22 July
1993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain
producers of milk and milk products temporarily                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
prevented from carrying on their trade ( OJ No L 196,                                          of 16 April 1997
1993 , p. 6 ), for compensation for the losses sustained by
the applicant owing to the fact that he was prevented                in Case T-66/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission
from marketing milk as a result of Council Regulation                                of the European Communities (')
( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                   (Officials — Cover by the Common Sickness Insurance
rules for the application of the levy referred to in                 Scheme — Ex-spouse of a former official — Action for
Article 5 (c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk           annulment — Admissibility — Duty to have regard for the
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p. 13 ), as              welfare of the person concerned — Free movement of
supplemented by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /              persons — Equal treatment — Decision of a national
84 of 16 May 1984 ( OJ No L 132, 1984, p. 11 ) — the                 court splitting pension rights by way of compensation —
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                                  Effects)
( First Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of A.
Saggio, President, and C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos,                                        ( 97/C 181 /25 )
V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges, Registrar: H.
Jung, has given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . declares that the defendants are bound to make good
      the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of
                                                                     In Case T-66/95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the ex-wife of
      the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
                                                                     a former official of the European Parliament, residing at
      84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                     Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter Rogalla,
      application of the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for service in
      Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
      products sector, as supplemented by Commission
                                                                     Roger Barthel , Béreldange, against Commission of the
      Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying .
                                                                     European Communities ( Agents : Joseph Griesmar, Julian
      down detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                     Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — application for a
      additional levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of
                                                                     declaration that the defendant is under a duty, on the one
      Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those
                                                                     hand, to continue to guarantee the applicant cover under
      Regulations did not make provision for the allocation          the Common Sickness Insurance Scheme and, on the other
      of a reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to
                                                                     hand, to use its right of initiative vis-a-vis the Council
      an undertaking given under Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     with a view to enabling persons in the applicant's position
      No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of
                                                                     to qualify for cover under the Common Sickness Insurance
      premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk
                                                                     Scheme and, in the alternative, for a declaration drawing
      products and for the conversion of dairy herds, did
                                                                     the German Government's attention to the gap in its
      not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by
      the Member State concerned;
                                                                     national legislation on sickness insurance and calling upon
                                                                     it to take appropriate measures to rectify that situation —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                     A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
2 . declares that the period in respect of which the                 Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      applicant must be compensated for the losses sustained         given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:
      as a result of the application of Regulation (EEC)
      No 857/84 is that beginning on 4 May 1987 and
      ending on 28 March 1989;
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
3 . orders the parties to forward to the Court, within
      12 months of this judgment, the amounts to be paid,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      established by mutual agreement;
                                                                     (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
4 . orders the parties, in the absence of an agreement, to
      submit to the Court their quantified claims;


title: Joined Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission (Operational programmes of the Cohesion Fund and of the ERDF managed by Spain — Request for interim payment — Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in functioning of management and control systems — Measures interrupting the period for payment — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Audit strategy — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10) (1)

   (Operational programmes of the Cohesion Fund and of the ERDF managed by Spain - Request for interim payment - Evidence suggesting significant deficiency in functioning of management and control systems - Measures interrupting the period for payment - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Audit strategy - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)
   2012/C 227/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and B. Conte and, in Case T-178/10, A. Steiblytė, agents)

      Re:

   Actions against the Commission decisions of 12 February 2010 (Case T-178/10), 8 April 2010 (Case T-263/10) and 15 April 2010 (Case T-265/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the interruption of the period for the settlement of certain requests for interim payment submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-178/10, T-263/10 and T-265/10 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.