title: Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Endemol Entertainment Holding BV, Veronica Omroep Organisatie, Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion SA, NV Verenigd Bezit VNU and RTL4 SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-221/95)

text:
No C 64/14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 3 . 96
Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 190 of          under Article 22 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89
the Treaty on the ground that the statement of reasons is             directly define and restrict the scope of the Commission's
inadequate .                                                          competence to investigate a concentration.
The applicant also relies on Article 175 of the Treaty against        As the Commission was, in the present case, requested by
the conduct of the Commission. The applicant explains in              the Netherlands Government to examine the concentration
this regard that the Commission has not defined its position          only in light of the TV advertising market, the Commission
as requested by the applicant, has not adopted any decision           could not expand the scope of the inquiry which it was
entailing the formal conclusion of the anti-dumping                   requested to carry out, so as to cover other markets .
proceeding and it has not taken within a reasonable period
any of the steps required by the basic Regulation in the event        Secondly, the Decision must be annulled because the
that a proposal to conclude anti-dumping proceedings                  Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence .
without imposing measures is rejected by the Council .                The Commission has seriously failed in its obligation to
                                                                      grant the applicants access to the file and to documents
                                                                      relevant for the conduct of their defence . This infringement
                                                                      of the rights of defence concerns not only the way in which
                                                                      the Commission granted 'access to the file ' but also the
                                                                      Commission 's refusal of access to essential documents
                                                                      obtained by the Commission after the date of the 'access to
Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Endemol                          the file '. There are serious indications that the Commission
Entertainment Holding BV, Veronica Omroep Organisatie,                thus withheld from the applicants documents which
Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion SA, NV                     supported their view and arguments .
Verenigd Bezit VNU and RTL4 SA against the Commission
                 of the European Communities                          Thirdly, the Decision must be annulled because the
                        ( Case T-221 /95 )                            Commission has infringed essential procedural rules and the
                           ( 96/C 64/31 )                             applicants' rights of defence by not submitting a report of
                                                                      the hearing to the Advisory Committee, the Commissioners
                                                                      and the applicants themselves .
                {Language of the case: English)
                                                                      Fourthly, the Decision must be annulled because the
An action against the Commission of the European                      Commission was wrong in concluding that Endemol 's
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     participation in HMG would strengthen an alleged
Instance of the European Communities on 4 December                    dominant position of Endemol in an alleged market of
1995 by Endemol Entertainment Holding BV, and Veronic                 independent Dutch TV production.
Omroep Organisatie, represented by Onno W. Brouwer and
Peter Wytinck, Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, and by                    Fifthly, HMG does not have a dominant position on the TV
Compagnie Luxembourgoise de Télédiffusion SA, NV                      broadcasting and TV advertising market . The applicants
Verenigd Bezit VNU and RLT4 SA, represented by Mark                   are, in particular, unable to agree with the Commission's
B. W. Biesheuvel and T. Martijn Snoep, De Brauw                       analysis of the position of the public broadcasters in the
Blackstone Westbroek, all with an address for service in              Netherlands . The Commission has limited itself to taking
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, Rue Goethe                   over and accepting on face value arguments and facts which
11 .                                                                  the Dutch public broadcasters have presented to the
                                                                      Commission, in their capacity as complainants ( SBS, a direct
                                                                      competitor of HMG, and the Dutch public broadcasters
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          have done their utmost to oppose and frustrate the creation
                                                                      of HMG).
— annul the Commission's Decision of 20 September 1995
     relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation
     ( EEC )    No 4064/89          ( IV/M.553-RTL/Veronica/-         Sixthly, the Decision must be annulled because the
     Endemol), and                                                    Commission has incorrectly held that Endemol has a
                                                                      dominant position. The Commission has defined the
                                                                      production market incorrectly . Furthermore, even in this
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs                   narrowly defined market, Endemol does not have a
     pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the          dominant position . The Commission has incorrectly
     Court of First Instance .                                        calculated Endemol's market share and relied on other
                                                                      incorrect facts in assessing Endemol's position .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Seventhly, the concentration will in any event not lead to a
Firstly, the applicants claim that the Decision must be               significant change in effective competition on the
annulled on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of power            production market.
and infringement of Article 22 ( 3 ) of Regulation 4064/89
and Article 3b of the EC Treaty. The applicants submit that
the text and the content of a request from a Member State


               26.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/16

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 February 2016 in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet
   (Case E-3/16)
   (2017/C 26/07)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 February 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 February 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet on the following questions:

               1.

               What is the legal test when determining whether an agreement between undertakings has a competition-restricting object within the meaning of Article 53 EEA?

                           a)

                           In this context, is it sufficient in order to be able to categorise a form of conduct as an infringement by object pursuant to Article 53 EEA, that the cooperation is capable of restricting competition?

               2.

               What is the legal significance for the consideration of whether a form of conduct constitutes an infringement by object, that such cooperation took place openly vis-à-vis the procuring authority?

               3.

               What legal criteria must in particular be emphasised when considering whether cooperation that takes the form of two competing companies submitting a joint tender through a joint venture, and where the two undertakings are to be subcontractors to the joint venture, should be deemed to constitute an infringement by object?


title: Case T-509/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Kessel medintim v EUIPO — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Premeno — Earlier national word mark Pramino — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Kessel medintim v EUIPO — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)
   (Case T-509/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Premeno - Earlier national word mark Pramino - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 086/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kessel medintim GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob and U. Staudenmaier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: M. Wenz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 349/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Janseen-Cilag and Kessel medintim.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kessel medintim GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-563/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 5 December 2012 — BDV Hungary Trading Kft. (in voluntary liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 5 December 2012 — BDV Hungary Trading Kft. (in voluntary liquidation) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-563/12)
   2013/C 114/33
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BDV Hungary Trading Kft. (in voluntary liquidation)

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 15 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (‘old VAT Directive’) and Article 146 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘new VAT Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that the transport outside Community territory of goods intended for export must take place within a defined period in order to qualify as an exempt supply of goods for export?

               2.

               Do the conditions of supply: whether the seller, the buyer or the supplier acted in good or bad faith, with due care or negligently; the period for declaration; or the fact that the goods are actually exported after the time-limit but within the limitation period for charging the tax have any effect on the answer to question 1?

               3.

               Is it compatible with the principles of tax neutrality, legal certainty and proportionality for the rules of a Member State to provide for additional conditions to the provisions of the Directives, and to make qualification as an exempt supply for export subject to a combination of several objective conditions that do not appear in the Directives?

               4.

               May Article 15 of the old VAT Directive and Articles 131 and 273 of the new VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the interests of preventing tax evasion, abuse and avoidance and of the correct charging and collection of tax, the Member State may also attach the conditions that are contained in Paragraph 11(1) of Law LXXIV of 1992 on Value Added Tax and in Paragraph 98(1) of Law CXXVII of 2007 on Value Added Tax to exempt exports?

               5.

               Is it consistent with the fundamental principles of Union law and the provisions of the Directives for the tax authority, in cases where such conditions, which do not appear in Articles 15 and 146 of the Directives, are not met, to alter the classification of an exempt export and order the taxpayer to pay tax? If so, in what circumstances is this possible?

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

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-604/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2015 by Ana Pérez Gutiérrez against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-168/14 Pérez Gutierrez v Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/35

         Appeal brought on 15 November 2015 by Ana Pérez Gutiérrez against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-168/14 Pérez Gutierrez v Commission
   (Case C-604/15 P)
   (2016/C 038/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Ana Pérez Gutiérrez (represented by: J. Soler Puebla, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September and continue the proceedings, giving a new judgment in which it:

               1.

               Declares that when the Commission, using without consent the image of Patrick Johannes Jacquemyn, included his photograph in the picture library of health warnings for tobacco products in the European Union, it infringed the right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to one’s own image.

               2.

               Orders the respondent to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 181 104 for loss of earnings.

               3.

               Orders the respondent to pay the appellant the sum of one euro cent (EUR 0,01) per tobacco packet or product bearing the picture of Patrick Jacquemyn, the total amount — presently twenty seven million, five hundred and eighty-eight thousand and five hundred and twenty-four euros (EUR 27 588 524) — to be determined upon enforcement of the judgment.

               4.

               Order the respondent to pay the appellant compensation for the profit derived from the unlawful use of the picture of Patrick Jacquemyn, amounting to EUR 13 790 000 in Spain, the place of residence of the appellant and of Patrick Jacquemyn.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Discrepancies between the conduct of the hearing and the contents of the judgment

   The appellant has never accepted the European Commission’s statements, but has merely agreed to the production of the unredacted documents out of time, which was not made clear in the judgment.

      Infringement of Article 15.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

   Breach of the principle of the European standard of EU citizens’ access to the documentation used by an EU body in adopting its decisions. The appellant has repeatedly requested documentation on the image rights for the photograph at issue which was never provided to her.

      Lack and insufficiency of evidence entailing a failure by the General Court to conduct preparatory inquiries into the matter

   The evidence requested by the appellant was not provided, while the evidence produced by the respondent provided not the slightest shred of evidence, for practically all the information was redacted.

      Breach of the principles of audi alteram partem and equality of arms

   The documents produced by the European Commission were redacted and contained no data; they prevented any adversarial analysis by the applicant, with the result that the appellant does not consider them to be valid evidence or that they could be classified as evidence by the General Court.

      Distortion of facts

   The redacted documents containing no data led the General Court to believe that the alleged taking of the photographs was in principle lawful, and that presumption could not be rebutted by the appellant because all conclusive evidence in the documents was missing. The redaction of the data in the documents was carried out on the basis of an incorrect application of the principles of data protection under the 1995 directive. (1)

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).


No C 180/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the                 1 . Are Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty establishing the
judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber                     EEC to be interpreted as precluding rules under which
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to
in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of                       authorization from the insured person's social security
                                Auditors                                    institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State
                          Case C- 1 5 6/96 P                                other than the State in which that person resides ?
                            ( 96/C 180/59 )
                                                                        2 . Is the answer to the first question any different if the aim
                                                                            of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
                                                                            hospital service accessible to everybody in a given
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            region ?
European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C.
Williams and the Court of Auditors was brought before the
 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
 1996 by C. Williams, represented by Eric Boigelot, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-3 27/93 ( )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                                      ( 96/C 180/61 )
 1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                    By order of 29 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
2 , consequently :                                                      from the register of Case C-327/93 ( reference for a
     ( a ) annul in its entirety the judgment delivered;                preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                        Bench Division ): The Queen v . Secretary of State for the
     ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his           National Heritage, ex parte: ( 1 ) Continental Television
           initial application , annul the decision of 24 January       BVio, ( 2 ) Continental Television pic and ( 3 ) Mark Roy
                                                                        Garner .
           1994 , notified by bailiff service on the same day,
           and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
           decision of 23 January 1994 implicitly rejecting the         (') OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
           complaint submitted by the appellant on
           23 September 1993 under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff
           Regulations;
     ( c ) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the
           appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .                  Removal from the register of Case C-120/94 ( 1 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( 96/C 180/62 )
Infringement of Community law. The appellant maintains                  By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
the pleas and claims advanced by him in the proceedings                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
before the Court of First Instance ( M.                                 from the register of Case C-120/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 12 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment
of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll                   Removal from the register of Case C-145/94 ( 1 )
                 v . Union des Caisses de Maladie                                                 ( 96/C 180/63 )
                          ( Case C-158/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/60 )                             By order of 13 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/94 ( reference for a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Penal No 2 de
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                        Lleida ): criminal proceedings against José Antonio Alonso
Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of the Grand Duchy of                  Rubio .
Luxembourg of 25 April 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie               (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
( Union of Health Insurance Funds ) on the following
questions :


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 July 1998 in Case T-156/96 Claus Jensen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Pay - Installation allowance - Recovery of undue payments)

text:
26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/31
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 17 July 1998
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
in Case T-111/96: ITT Promedia NV v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)                             in Case T-144/96: Y. v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Criminal conviction Ð Disciplinary
(Competition Ð Actions for annulment Ð Rejection of a              proceedings Ð removal from post Ð Statement of reasons
complaint Ð Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð Abuse of a                    Ð Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
dominant position Ð Actions before national courts Ð
Right of access to the courts Ð Claim for performance of                                   (98/C 299/50)
an agreement Ð Manifest error of assessment Ð
Obligation to carry out an examination Ð Error of                                 (Language of the case: French)
    characterisation Ð Inadequate statement of reasons)
                                                                   In Case T-144/96: Y., a former official of the European
                         (98/C 299/49)                             Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by GeÂrard
                                                                   Collin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
                                                                   Cessange, against the European Parliament (Agents: Hans
               (Language of the case: English)                     Krück and Hugo Vandenberghe) Ð application for the
                                                                   annulment of the disciplinary decision of the Parliament of
                                                                   19 January 1996 removing the applicant from his post Ð
                                                                   the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                   J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
In Case T-111/96: ITT Promedia NV, established at
                                                                   Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July
Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Ivo Van Bael, Peter
                                                                   1998, in which it:
L'Ecluse and Kris Van Hove, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe, against the Commission            1. dismisses the application;
of the European Communities (Agents: Wouter Wils and
Rosemary Caudwell), supported by Belgacom SA,                      2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
established in Brussels, represented by Jules Stuyck and
subsequently by Hermann De Bauw and Paul Maeyaert,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt Ð application for annulment of
a Commission decision definitively rejecting the heads of
the applicant's complaint which allege that Belgacom SA
had initiated vexatious litigation against it before the
Belgian courts and had requested the transfer by it to               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Belgacom SA of its industrial and commercial know-how                                     of 16 July 1998
in accordance with contractual commitments between the
two parties, those acts allegedly constituting infringements       in Case T-156/96 Claus Jensen v. Commission of the
of Article 86 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First                                  European Communities (1)
Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition),                   (Officials Ð Pay Ð Installation allowance Ð Recovery of
composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K.                               undue payments)
Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                  (98/C 299/51)
17 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-156/96 Claus Jensen, a former temporary
1. dismisses the application;                                      servant of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                   residing at Waterloo (Belgium), represented by Marc-
                                                                   Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue
                                                                   de Nassau, against the Commission of the European
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay           Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Christine
     those incurred by the Commission and Belgacom.                Berardis-Kayser and Florence Clotuche) Ð application for
                                                                   annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 November
                                                                   1995 to recover the amount paid to the applicant by way
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.                                           of installation allowance, following termination of his
                                                                   contract as a temporary servant and, in the alternative, a
                                                                   claim for damages Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
                                                                   composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W.
                                                                   Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/32              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26.9.98
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is           3. the remainder of the action is dismissed;
as follows:
                                                                   4. the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1. the action is dismissed;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
2. each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          in Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
                      (Second Chamber)                                               European Communities (1)
                       of 16 July 1998                             (Staff committee Ð Procedures Ð Amendment of the staff
in Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri v. Commission of the             committee rules Ð General assembly Ð Electoral system
                  European Communities (1)                                                Ð Admissibility)
(Officials Ð Secondment in the interest of the service Ð                                    (98/C 299/53)
Temporary posting Ð Entitlement to secondment                                     (Language of the case: French)
 differential allowance Ð Discretion of the administration)
                        (98/C 299/52)                              In Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                     Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
                                                                   BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
In Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri, an official of the              service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Currall) Ð application for the annulment, in whole or in
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, against the           part, of the genral assembly of the staff of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian             Commission assigned to Luxembourg of 5 December 1995
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for                    and of the decision to amend the staff committee rules
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of             adopted by that assembly as well as all other subsequent
12 December 1995 rejecting the applicant's request to              acts adopted pursuant to that decision Ð the Court of
have the temporary duties taken on by him recognised and           First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
for payment of the differential allowance and, second, of          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
the decision of the Commission of 24 July 1996 declaring           Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
that the applicant is acting as head of division of Unit 4         gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
(Common Customs Tariff), Directorate B (Customs),
                                                                   1. dismisses the action;
Directorate General XXI (Customs and Direct Taxation)
and recognising the temporary nature of the posting in so          2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
far as the date on which that decision is to take effect is
set at 1 August 1996 for a fixed term of one year and not          (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
for an indefinite period as from 29 October 1992 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
1. the decisions of the Commission of 12 December 1995
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
     and 24 July 1996 are annulled except in so far as the
     second decision recognises the temporary nature of the        in Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     applicant's posting;                                          derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the           (Cosmetic products Ð Directive 76/768/EEC Ð Directive
     monthly differential allowance referred to in                 95/34/EC Ð Sun-creams and bronzing-products Ð Public
     Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations to which he                health Ð Non-contractual liability of the Community)
     would have been entitled if he had been called on to
     occupy, temporarily, the post of Head of Unit XXI.B.4                                  (98/C 299/54)
     on 24 March 1993, together with default interest at                          (Language of the case: French)
     the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the dates
     on which those payments should have been made and             In Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     until complete payment is made;                               derm SA, established at Rungis (France), and Jean-Jacques


title: Case C-258/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 26 May 2014  — Eugenia Florescu and Others v Casa Județeană de Pensii Sibiu and Others

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Eugenia Florescu and Others v Casa Județeană de Pensii Sibiu and Others
   (Case C-258/14)
   2014/C 292/18
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties

      Applicants for revision: Eugenia Florescu, Ioan Poiană, Cosmina Diaconu (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir), Anca Vidrighin (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir), Eugenia Elena Bădilă (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir)

      Respondents: Casa Județeană de Pensii Sibiu, Casa Națională de Pensii și alte Drepturi de Asigurări Sociale, Ministerul Muncii, Familiei și Protecției Sociale, Statul Român prin Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice prin D.G.F.P. Sibiu

      Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

               1)

               May a memorandum such as the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009, published in Monitorul Oficial No 455 of 1 July 2009, be regarded as an act, decision or communication having legal force within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case 59/75 Flavia Manghera [1976] and Case C-57/95 France v Commission [1997]) and may it be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

               2)

               If the answer is in the affirmative, is the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009, published in Monitorul Oficial No 455 of 1 July 2009, to be interpreted as allowing the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis by reducing staff costs, the adoption of a national law which withdraws a person’s right to receive a contributory pension accrued over more than 30 years, which was legally established and received before that law came into force, on the ground that the person in question receives a salary for activity, carried out on the basis of an employment contract, other than the activity in respect of which he receives the pension?

               3)

               Is the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009 to be interpreted as allowing the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis, the adoption of a national law which completely and indefinitely withdraws a person’s right to receive a contributory pension accrued over more than 30 years, which was legally established and received before that law came into force, on the ground that the person in question receives a salary for activity, carried out on the basis of an employment contract, other than the activity in respect of which he receives the pension?

               4)

               On a proper construction of the Memorandum as a whole, and specifically of section (d) of paragraph 5 thereof, which concerns reforming and improving the efficiency of the public administration, was it lawful for the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis, the adoption of a national law which barred retired officials of the public institutions from receiving a salary in addition to the pension?

               5)

               Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the principle of legal certainty enshrined in European Union (‘EU’) law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that set out in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004, which provides that, in the event of failure to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law, it is possible to revise decisions of national courts only in the context of administrative law proceedings and which does not allow decisions of national courts made in other areas (civil, criminal, commercial, and so on) to be revised in the event that such decisions are inconsistent with that principle?

               6)

               Does Article 6 TEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which the payment of a professional judge’s pension, established on the basis of contributions made by that judge over more than 30 years of judicial service, is to be conditional upon the termination of his employment contract to teach law at university level?

               7)

               Do Article 6 TEU, Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which divests a pension holder of his right to receive a pension, even though that pension has been established on the basis of contributions made over more than 30 years, where judges have made and continue to make separate pension contributions in respect of their university teaching activities?

               8)

               Do Article 6 TEU, Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (which covers the equal treatment of persons regardless of race and ethnic origin) (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude the Constitutional Court of a Member State from delivering a judgment by which, in exercise of its jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law, it establishes that only persons appointed for a fixed term have the right to combine a pension with a salary, thereby denying that right to professional judges, who are barred from receiving their pension, established on the basis of personal contributions made over more than 30 years, because they have retained a position teaching law at university level?

               9)

               Do Article 6 TEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which indefinitely makes the payment of a judge’s pension, established on the basis of contributions made over more than 30 years, conditional upon termination of university employment?

               10)

               Do Article 6 TEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which destroys the proper balance to be maintained between the protection of personal property, on the one hand, and general interest requirements, on the other, and which requires only one specific category of persons to lose their judicial pension by reason of the fact that they engage in university employment?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-261/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/54)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 31 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-261/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Arbeitsgericht Regensburg): Gerhard Schmidt v Sennebogen Maschinenfabrik GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.


title: Case C-182/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage) (Belgium)) — Marie-Noëlle Solvay and Others v Région wallonne (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Concept of legislative act — Force and effect of the guidance in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide — Consent for a project given without an appropriate assessment of its effects on the environment — Access to justice in environmental matters — Extent of the right to a review procedure — Habitats Directive — Plan or project affecting the integrity of the site — Imperative reason of overriding public interest)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage) (Belgium)) — Marie-Noëlle Solvay and Others v Région wallonne
   (Case C-182/10) (1)

   (Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Concept of legislative act - Force and effect of the guidance in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide - Consent for a project given without an appropriate assessment of its effects on the environment - Access to justice in environmental matters - Extent of the right to a review procedure - Habitats Directive - Plan or project affecting the integrity of the site - Imperative reason of overriding public interest)
   2012/C 98/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Nicole Laloux, François Gevers, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Bernadette Mestdag, Jean-François Seraffin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Mariel Jeanne, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Seraffin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe, Notre village ASBL, André Philips, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Sartau SA, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Antoine Boxus, Pierre Deneye, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Paul Thiry, Willy Roua, Guido Durlet, Agrebois SA, Yves de la Court

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Intervening parties: Infrabel SA, Codic Belgique SA, Federal Express European Services Inc. (FEDEX), Société wallonne des aéroports (Sowaer), Société régionale wallonne du transport (SRWT), Société Intercommunale du Brabant wallon (IBW)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage) — Interpretation of Articles 2(2), 3(9), 6(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 1(5), 9(1) and 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Concept of ‘public authority’ — Value and scope of the guidance given in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide — Whether legislative acts such as town-planning or environmental consents granted by means of decree by a regional legislature are outside the scope of the Aarhus Convention — Whether a procedure leading to the granting of consents which can be challenged only by an action brought before the Cour constitutionnelle and the ordinary courts is compatible with the Convention and with Community law — Project authorised without an appropriate environmental impact assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               For the interpretation of Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, it is permissible to take the Implementation Guide for that Convention into consideration, but that Guide has no binding force and does not have the normative effect of the provisions of that Convention.

               2.

               Article 2(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 1(5) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of the Convention and the directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the scope of those instruments. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ‘ratify’ a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons in the public interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been commenced, cannot be regarded as a specific act of legislation within the meaning of the latter provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the scope of that Convention and that directive as amended.

               3.

               Articles 3(9) and 9(2) to (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           when a project falling within the scope of those provisions is adopted by a legislative act, the question whether that legislative act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 1(5) of that directive as amended must be capable of being submitted, under the national procedural rules, to a court of law or an independent and impartial body established by law, and

                           —

                           if no review procedure of the nature and scope set out above were available in respect of such an act, any national court before which an action falling within its jurisdiction is brought would have the task of carrying out the review described in the previous indent and, as the case may be, drawing the necessary conclusions by disapplying that legislative act.

               4.

               Article 6(9) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as not requiring that the decision should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority’s decision that it was necessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for that decision or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made.

               5.

               Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not allowing a national authority, even if it is a legislative authority, to authorise a plan or project without having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

               6.

               Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the creation of infrastructure intended to accommodate a management centre cannot be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest, such reasons including those of a social or economic nature, within the meaning of that provision, capable of justifying the implementation of a plan or project that will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-227/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Price-fixing — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of value of sales — Joint venture — Taking sales to parent companies into account — Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) — Point 23(b), final paragraph — Partial immunity from fines — Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-227/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Price-fixing - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of value of sales - Joint venture - Taking sales to parent companies into account - Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) - Point 23(b), final paragraph - Partial immunity from fines - Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission))
   (2015/C 205/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders LG Display Co. Ltd and LG Display Taiwan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-652/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Nigyar Rauf Kaza Ahmedbekova, Rauf Emin Ogla Аhmedbekov v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Nigyar Rauf Kaza Ahmedbekova, Rauf Emin Ogla Аhmedbekov v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
   (Case C-652/16)
   (2017/C 086/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nigyar Rauf Kaza Ahmedbekova, Rauf Emin Ogla Аhmedbekov

      Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from Article 78(1) and 78(2)(a), (d) and (f) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and from recital 12 and Article 1 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) that the ground for the inadmissibility of applications for international protection provided for in Article 33(2)(e) of that directive constitutes a directly effective provision which the Member States may not choose not to apply, for example by applying more favourable provisions of national law under which the initial application for international protection must, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, be examined first from the point of view of whether the applicant fulfils the conditions for qualification as a refugee and then from the point of view of whether that person is eligible for subsidiary protection?

               2.

               Does it follow from Article 33(2)(e) of Directive 2013/32, in conjunction with Article 7(3) and Article 2(a), (c) and (g) and recital 60 of that directive, that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, an application for international protection lodged by a parent on behalf of an accompanied minor is inadmissible where the reason given for the application is that the child is a member of the family of the person who has applied for international protection on the ground that he is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention on Refugees?

               3.

               Does it follow from Article 33(2)(e) of Directive 2013/32, in conjunction with Article 7(1) and Article 2(a), (c) and (g) and recital 60 of that directive, that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, an application for international protection lodged on behalf of an adult is inadmissible where the only reason given for the application in the proceedings before the relevant administrative authority is that the applicant is a member of the family of the person who has applied for international protection on the ground that he is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention on Refugees and, at the time when he lodges the application, the applicant has no right to carry on an occupation?

               4.

               Does Article 4(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), in conjunction with recital 36 of that directive, require that the assessment of whether there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted or a real risk of suffering serious harm be carried out only on the basis of facts and circumstances relating to the applicant?

               5.

               Does Article 4 of Directive 2011/95, in conjunction with recital 36 thereof and Article 31(1) of Directive 2013/32, permit national case-law in a Member State which:

                           (a)

                           obliges the responsible authority to assess the applications for international protection lodged by members of one and the same family in a joint procedure, in cases where those applications are based on the same facts, specifically the assertion that only one of the family members is a refugee;

                           (b)

                           obliges the responsible authority to suspend the proceedings relating to applications for international protection lodged by family members who do not personally meet the conditions for such protection until such time as the proceedings relating to the application lodged by the family member on the ground that the person concerned is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention on Refugees are concluded; and

                     is that case-law also permissible in the light of considerations relating to the best interests of the child, maintenance of family unity and respect for the right to private and family life and the right to remain in the Member State pending the assessment of the application, more specifically in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 12 and 60 and Article 9 of Directive 2013/32, recitals 16, 18 and 36 and Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 and recitals 9, 11 and 35 and Articles 6 and 12 of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection?

               6.

               Does it follow from recitals 16, 18 and 36 and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95, in conjunction with recital 24 and Article 2(d) and (j), Article 13 and Article 23(1) and (2) of that directive, that a provision of national law, such as Article 8(9) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on asylum and refugees), at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the members of the family of a foreign national who has been granted refugee status are also regarded as refugees in so far as this is compatible with their personal status and there are no reasons in national law for excluding the granting of refugee status, is permissible?

               7.

               Does it follow from the rules relating to the reasons for persecution contained in Article 10 of Directive 2011/95 that the bringing of a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights against the State of origin of the person concerned establishes that person’s membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of that directive, or that the bringing of that complaint is to be regarded as constituting a political opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) of the directive?

               8.

               Does it follow from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 that the court is obliged to examine the substance of new grounds for international protection which have been put forward in the course of the judicial proceedings but which were not relied on in the action brought against the decision refusing international protection?

               9.

               Does it follow from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 that the court is obliged to assess the admissibility of the application for international protection on the basis of Article 33(2)(e) of that directive in the proceedings brought against the decision refusing international protection, in so far as, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, the contested decision assessed the application first from the point of view of whether the applicant meets the conditions for qualification as a refugee and then from the point of view of whether that applicant is eligible for subsidiary protection?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

      (3)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.


title: Case C-18/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Maks Pen EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Sofia (Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Supplies made — Tax inspection — Supplier not having the necessary resources — Concept of tax evasion — Obligation to make a finding of tax evasion of the court’s own motion — Requirement that the service actually be supplied — Requirement to keep accounts in sufficient detail — Legal proceedings — National court prohibited from classifying the tax evasion as a criminal offence and adversely affecting the applicant’s situation)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Maks Pen EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Sofia
   (Case C-18/13) (1)

   (Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Supplies made - Tax inspection - Supplier not having the necessary resources - Concept of tax evasion - Obligation to make a finding of tax evasion of the court’s own motion - Requirement that the service actually be supplied - Requirement to keep accounts in sufficient detail - Legal proceedings - National court prohibited from classifying the tax evasion as a criminal offence and adversely affecting the applicant’s situation)
   2014/C 93/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maks Pen EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia, formerly Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Sofia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Arts 63, 178(1)(a), 226(1), point 6, and 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of ‘tax evasion’ — Reference on the invoice to a supplier not having the personnel, equipment or assets required to supply the service — No accounting records — False documents drawn up to attest that the supply was made — Obligation on the national court to find of its own motion that there was tax evasion — Right to deduct subject to the requirement that a supply actually be made — Requirement to observe international accounting rules in order to satisfy the requirements of keeping accounts in sufficient detail to allow the right to deduct to be checked — Potential need to include in the invoices information regarding the actual supply of the service — National legislation deeming the service to be supplied when the conditions required for recognition of the revenue arising from that service are satisfied in accordance with the relevant legislation.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person from deducting the value added tax included in the invoices issued by a supplier where, although the supply was made, it is apparent that it was not actually made by that supplier or by its sub-contractor, inter alia because they did not have the personnel, equipment or assets required, there was no record of the costs of making the supply in their accounts and the identification of persons signing certain documents as the suppliers was shown to be inaccurate, subject to the twofold condition that such facts constitute fraudulent conduct and that it is established, in the light of the objective evidence provided by the tax authorities, that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on to give entitlement to the right to deduct was connected with that fraud, which it is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Where the national courts must or may raise of their own motion points of law based on binding rules of national law, they must do so in relation to a binding rule of EU law such as that which requires that the national courts and authorities refuse entitlement to the right to deduct value added tax where it is established, in the light of objective evidence, that that right is being relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends. It is incumbent on those courts, in the assessment of whether that right to deduct was relied on for fraudulent or abusive ends, to interpret the national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directive 2006/112, in order to achieve the result sought by that directive, which requires that they do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law.

               3.

               Directive 2006/112, by requiring in particular, pursuant to Article 242 thereof, that any taxable person keep accounts in sufficient detail to allow the value added tax to be applied and its application checked by the tax authorities, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State concerned, within the limits provided for in Article 273 of that directive, from requiring that any taxable person observe in that regard all the national accounting rules consistent with international accounting standards, provided that the measures adopted to that effect do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct levying and collection of the tax and preventing tax evasion. In that regard, Directive 2006/112 precludes a national provision according to which a service is deemed to have been supplied at the time when the conditions governing recognition of the revenue arising from that service are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


               7.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/8

         Action brought on 11 April 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-8/11)
   2011/C 199/04
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 April 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by failing to ensure that its competent authorities have made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drawn up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive are sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;
               and

               2.

               the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to make noise maps and noise action plans regarding major roads with more than six million vehicle passages a year.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that such a failure constitutes a breach of Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-304/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council
   (Case T-304/15) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 213/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdukarim.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2005 in Case T-284/03 Rosalinda Aycinena v the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment to higher grade in career — Classification in step)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/27

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 February 2005
   in Case T-284/03 Rosalinda Aycinena v the Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Appointment to higher grade in career - Classification in step)
   (2005/C 93/55)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-284/03: Rosalinda Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, A. Coolen and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) – action for annulment of the Commission's decision fixing her definitive classification on appointment at Grade LA 6, step 1, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18 October 2003.


title: Case C-77/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 — Establishment of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union — Validity)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-77/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 - Establishment of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union - Validity)
   (2008/C 51/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. O'Neill and C. Gibbs, Agents, and A. Dashwood, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by D. O'Hagan, Agent, and A. Collins, SC, and P. McGarry, BL), Republic of Poland (represented by J. Pietras, Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by R. Procházka, J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J. Schutte and R. Szostak, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. O'Reilly, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2004 L 349, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, Ireland, the Republic of Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-448/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — EEB v Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/27

         Action brought on 6 August 2015 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-448/15)
   (2015/C 328/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Commission to be in violation of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and the Aarhus Convention namely:

                           a.

                           Articles 1(1)(a), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for failure to interpret these provisions in accordance with Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and/or to directly apply Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention to environmental information, as Articles 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 are incompatible with Article 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and illegally extend the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) to environmental information;

                           b.

                           Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret and apply the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way and/or to take into account the public interest in disclosure of environmental information and/or the take into account that the information at issue relates to emissions into the environment;

               —

               declare the Commission in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 namely:

                           a.

                           Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not providing detailed reasons for refusing access to the documents concerned;

                           b.

                           Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by applying the first paragraph of this provision to documents related to a finalised decision-making process;

                           c.

                           Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to assess in a sufficient way whether there was an overriding public interest in disclosure;

                           d.

                           Articles 6(3), 7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not undertaking any efforts to confer informally with a view to finding a fair solution and for not taking a decision within the prescribed time-limits;

               —

               condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the EEB, including interest, as a result of the EEB not having timely access to the requested documents, which were not disclosed by the Commission in accordance with the time-limits prescribed in Articles 7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to an amount to be determined by the General Court, but not lower than 1 Euro;

               —

               annul the Contested Commission Decision of 1 June 2015; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of intervening parties annul the Contested Commission Decision of 1 June 2015.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following arguments and pleas in law regarding violation by the Commission of Regulations (EC) No 1367/2006 and 1049/2001 and of the Aarhus Convention (3):

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 1(1)(a), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and/or Articles 4(1), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention.

                           —

                           The requested information qualifies as environmental information under the Aarhus Convention and under Articles 2(d)(iii), 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006;

                           —

                           Articles 3 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 are incompatible with Article 4(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and illegally extend the grounds of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to environmental information;

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 regarding the restrictive interpretation of exceptions to the main rule of disclosure, regarding the obligation of the balancing of interests and regarding the ‘emissions rule’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The ground of refusal of Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not apply to the documents requested;

                           —

                           Disclosure of the documents requested does not seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process;

                           —

                           Violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 where the Commission did not correctly balance the interests protected by non-disclosure against the public interest served with the disclosure of the documents concerned.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 7(1) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, in relation to the action for damages under Article 340 TFEU, alleging the violation by the Commission of Article 7(1) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ L 264 of 25.9.2006, p. 13.

      (2)  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 L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43.

      (3)  Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, the Aarhus Convention, OJ L 124 of 17.5.2005, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Impregilo SpA and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-19/98)

text:
C 72/28             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
Ð a breach of the obligation to state reasons, inasmuch              The complaint alleged conduct which amounted to serious
    as in the contested refusal the Council merely                   infringements of the rules on competition of the EC Treaty
    reproduced the text of Council Decision 97/731/EC,               committed during the construction of the building for the
    without relating it to a specific factual premise.               Council of the European Union in Brussels. The nature
                                                                     and effect of those infringements was to distort
                                                                     competition to the detriment of undertakings from other
                                                                     Member States and to dissuade in the long term non-
                                                                     Belgian undertakings from taking part in Belgian public
                                                                     procurement contracts. Essentially, that complaint was
Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Impregilo SpA and               directed against an agreement, arrangement or concerted
Others against the Commission of the European                        practice between a large number of the major Belgian
                        Communities                                  construction and public works undertakings which
                       (Case T-19/98)                                enabled them to penalise' the members of CDK, one of
                        (98/C 72/59)                                 which is an Italian undertaking and another German,
                                                                     which dared' to attempt to penetrate the Belgian
               (Language of the case: French)                        construction and public works market by submitting
                                                                     tenders for the construction of the Council's new
An action against the Commission of the European                     buildings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January
1998 by Impregilo SpA, established in Milan (Italy),                 Such conduct was made possible largely by the action of
Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG (Dywidad), established in                    the Belgian State itself. By conferring on the EGC
Ascheim (Federal Republic of Germany) and Entreprises                consortium an economically and legally dominant position
Koeckelberg SA, established in Charleroi (Belgium),                  with respect to its competitor CDK, in particular by
represented by Chantal Bonnard, of the Paris Bar, with an            granting it excessive powers and an unprecedented
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 plurality of roles, the Belgian State infringed the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue.                                            Community competition rules and created a situation
                                                                     which inevitably led to manifest, serious and repeated
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          abuses.
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 13 November
    1997 whereby the latter rejected the applicants'                 The Commission rejected that complaint by way of the
    requests that the infringements of Articles 5, 85, 86            contested decision.
    and 90 of the EC Treaty committed by Belgian
    construction undertakings and the Belgian State during           The applicants plead infringement of Articles 5, 85, 86
    the construction of the new Council of Ministers                 and 90 of the EC Treaty.
    building be penalised,
Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs incurred              By failing to carry out an investigation, despite all the
    by the applicants in the present action for annulment.           circumstantial and factual evidence in its possession
                                                                     pointing to the existence of a collective dominant position,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     the Commission has infringed Article 86 and failed to
The applicants, three construction undertakings, are                 fulfil its obligations with regard to the application of the
members of CDK', a consortium governed by Belgian                   competition rules.
law, set up in order to participate in the construction of
the new building complex intended to accommodate the                 The granting of exclusive and special powers to EGC by
Council's staff. EGC' is a consortium governed by Belgian           the Belgian State is a breach of the Belgian State's
law, under which are grouped the members of four                     obligations flowing from 90 of the EC Treaty.
consortia consisting mainly of Belgian contractors, formed
for the purpose of constructing the Council's buildings.
The members of the EGC are among the major                           Moreover, the contested decision is contrary to Article 85
construction companies in Belgium.                                   of the EC Treaty inasmuch as it considers that the setting
                                                                     up of EGC is not incompatible with that provision. The
On 28 February 1996 the members of CDK lodged a                      rejection of the complaint on the ground that the
complaint with the defendant against 16 Belgian                      applicants have not suffered any damage as a result of the
undertakings in the construction industry which form part            consortium with regard to some lots is likewise contrary
of the EGC consortium and against the Belgian State.                 to Article 85.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Directive 92/43/EEC — Urgency — None)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/24

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 July 2005
   in Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker v Commission of the European Communities
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Directive 92/43/EEC - Urgency - None)
   (2005/C 229/52)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-117/05 R: Andreas Rodenbröker, residing in Hövelhof (Germany), and the 81 other applicants whose names are set out in an annex to the order, represented by H. Glatzel, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and B. Schima, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of further implementation of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 5 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved