title: Case C-250/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of persons — Purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal residence — Calculation of a tax advantage — Registration duties — Cohesion of the tax system)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-250/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of persons - Purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal residence - Calculation of a tax advantage - Registration duties - Cohesion of the tax system)
   2012/C 32/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent, and by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, advocaat)

      Intervening party in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Borvölgyi and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 18 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC and of Articles 31 EEA and 40 EEA — Calculation of a tax advantage upon purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence — Registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence taken into account only if that place of residence was situated in the Flemish Region

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-150/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 14 April 2008 — Siebrand BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 14 April 2008 — Siebrand BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-150/08)
   (2008/C 171/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Siebrand BV

      Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can a beverage which contains a certain amount of distilled alcohol but which otherwise corresponds to the definition of heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be classified under that heading if the beverage in question is a fermented beverage which, as a result of the addition of water and particular ingredients, has lost the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from a particular fruit or natural product?

               2.

               In the event of a positive answer to Question 1, what criterion should govern the determination as to whether the beverage is nevertheless to be classified under heading 2208 of the CN on the ground that it contains distilled alcohol?


title: Case T-478/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/25

         Action brought on 9 September 2011 — France v Commission
   (Case T-478/11)
   2011/C 340/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J Gstalter and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN 10/2010 concerning the action taken by the interprofession nationale porcine (French pig and pork producers association) (‘INAPORC’), which is financed by ‘voluntary’ contributions which have been made compulsory (‘CVCs’), levied by INAPORC on the members it represents. The Commission considered the CVCs to be measures constituting State aid compatible with the internal market.
   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging that the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TEU was misapplied when the Commission held that the action taken by INAPORC, using income deriving from the CVCs, was imputable to the State and was financed by State resources.
   The applicant argues that the action taken by INAPORC, using income deriving from the CVCs, meets the requirements set by the Court of Justice in Case C-345/02 Pearle and Others [2004] ECR I-7139 if compulsory contributions levied by a body representing undertakings in an economic sector are not to be regarded as State resources which finance action imputable to the State, since:

               —

               the action taken by INAPORC is determined by the professional body which represents undertakings in the agricultural sector concerned and is not an instrument for implementing State policy;

               —

               the action taken by INAPORC is financed by means of resources collected from undertakings in the sector;

               —

               the financing arrangements and the percentage/quantity of the contributions is established within INAPORC without the State intervening in any way;

               —

               the contributions have to be used for financing the measure, there being no possibility for the State to intervene.


title: Case T-342/07: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — Ryanair v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport — Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition — Barriers to entry — Efficiency gains — Commitments)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-342/07) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Barriers to entry - Efficiency gains - Commitments)
   2010/C 221/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Swift QC, V. Power, A. McCarthy and D. Hull, Solicitors, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and S. Noë, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin) (represented initially by A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Snels, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Burnside and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke)
   and
   Ireland (represented by D. O’Hagan and J. Buttimore, acting as Agents, and M. Cush, D. Barniville and N. Travers, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ryanair Holdings plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc;

               3.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-94/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Articles 17 and 20 — Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment — Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-94/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Articles 17 and 20 - Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment - Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay))
   (2016/C 156/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd

      Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a court is seised of a procedure, such as that in the main proceedings, concerning the designation of the court of the Member State of origin of a European order for payment having territorial jurisdiction and examines, in those circumstances, the international jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State to hear the contentious proceedings concerning the debt which gave rise to such an order for payment, against which the defendant has entered a statement of opposition within the time-limit prescribed for that purpose:

               —

               since Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure does not provide any indications as to the powers and obligations of that court, those procedural questions continue, pursuant to Article 26 of that regulation, to be governed by the national law of that Member State;

               —

               Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters requires the question of the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment to be decided by application of procedural rules which enable the effectiveness of the provisions of that regulation and the rights of the defence to be guaranteed, whether it is the referring court or a court which the referring court designates as the court having territorial and substantive jurisdiction to hear a claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings under the ordinary civil procedure which rules on that question;

               —

               if a court such as the referring court rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment and finds that there is such jurisdiction in the light of the criteria set out in Regulation No 44/2001, that regulation and Regulation No 1896/2006 require such a court to interpret national law in such a way that it permits it to identify or designate a court having territorial or substantive jurisdiction to hear that procedure, and,

               —

               if a court such as the referring court finds that there is no such international jurisdiction, that court is not required of its own motion to review that order for payment by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-653/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Absence of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě
   (Case C-653/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings - Absence of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   (2017/C 249/20)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jitka Svobodová

      Defendant: Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě

      In the presence of: Česká republika — Ministerstvo spravedlnosti ČR

      Re:

   The application for a preliminary ruling brought by the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic), by decision of 2 December 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case C-49/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 February 2014  — Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A. v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano and Others

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 February 2014 — Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A. v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano and Others
   (Case C-49/14)
   2014/C 135/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanmadrid E.F.C, S.A.

      Defendants: Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano, María Josefa García Zapata, Jorge Luis Albán Zambrano, Miriam Elisabeth Caicedo Merino

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Directive [93/13] (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that currently governing the Spanish order for payment procedure (Articles 815 and 816 [of the] LEC), which does not mandatorily provide either for the examination of unfair terms or the intervention of the court, except when the Secretario Judicial considers it expedient or the debtors lodge an objection, because that legislation hinders or prevents examination of their own motion by the courts of contracts which may contain unfair terms?

               (2)

               Must Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as the Spanish law that does not permit a court to consider, of its own motion and [in] limine litis, during subsequent enforcement proceedings [relating to] an enforceable instrument (a reasoned decision issued by the Secretario Judicial bringing the order for payment procedure to a close), whether the contract giving rise to the reasoned decision whose enforcement is sought contained unfair terms, because under national law the matter is res judicata (Articles 551 and 552 in conjunction with Article 816(2) of the LEC)?

               (3)

               Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that relating to the order for payment procedure and the procedure for the enforcement of judicial instruments, that does not provide for review by the court in every case during the declaratory stages of proceedings and does not permit the court at the enforcement stage to reconsider the reasoned decisions previously taken by the Secretario Judicial?

               (4)

               Must the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation that prohibits a court from considering, of its own motion, whether the right to be heard has been observed, because the matter is res judicata?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-390/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Decision No 280/2004/EC — Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol — National measures intended to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions — Failure to communicate the information required)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-390/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Decision No 280/2004/EC - Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol - National measures intended to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions - Failure to communicate the information required)
   2009/C 153/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57) — Information relating to national projections concerning greenhouse gas emissions and measures adopted to limit and/or reduce such emissions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required by 15 March 2007 under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285 of 8.11.2008.


               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/1

         Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice
   (2006/C 143/02)
   Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 6 April 2006, (1) Mr Antonio Tizzano took up his duties on 4 May 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 104 of 13 April 2006, p. 37.


title: Case C-338/07 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 2007 by Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission , T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission , T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission , T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission , T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission , T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission , T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission , T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission , and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/7

         Appeal brought on 20 July 2007 by Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission, and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

   (Case C-338/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, S.L. (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the contested judgment in full or in part on the ground of all, or some, of the legal grounds set out below is so far as it affects the appellant, and draw from the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences, whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               declare the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed by Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (1), which is being appealed against;

               —

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

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the action for annulment proceedings relating to the contested judgment.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of the right to a fair hearing in relation to the assessment of the alleged participation in certain meetings of the cartel on the Spanish market and participation in a European cartel.

               2.

               Infringement of the presumption of innocence in respect of the assessment of the alleged infringements as a result of circumstantial evidence.

               3.

               Infringement of Community law in connection with the disproportionate and unfair nature of the fine in respect of its severity, its calculation and the application of attenuating circumstances, and a lack of reasoning in the assessment of certain attenuating circumstances.

               4.

               Infringement of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable period of time.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-7/93: Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream P Relevant market P Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties P Trade between Member States P Comfort letter P Block exemption P Lawfulness of the withdrawal of the exemption P Prohibition of concluding exclusive agreements in the future)

text:
No C 208/ 18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
of the Court ofJustice and the third paragraph of Article 5 of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, the decisions of                                        of 8 June 1995
2 June 1994 i 1 ) and 18 January 1995 (2 ) on the designation
of the Presidents of Chambers, the composition of the                   in Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
Chambers and the assignment of cases to them would                                         European Communities ( l )
continue to apply and President of the Court Jose Luis da               (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements for
Cruz Vilaça could continue to exercise the presidency of the            ice-cream — Relevant market — Possible barriers to entry to
Court of First Instance .                                               the market by third parties — Trade between Member
                                                                        States — Comfort letter — Block exemption — Lawfulness
(') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                       of the withdrawal of the exemption — Prohibition of
( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                                concluding exclusive agreements in the future)
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 18 May 1995                               In Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH, established in
in Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri v. Commission of the                   Hamburg ( Germany), represented by Martin Heidenhain,
                    European Communities ( J )                          Bernhard M. Maassen and Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                        Frankfurt-am-Main, with an address for service in
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Council Regulation (EEC)
No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing                     Luxembourg at the chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich
conditions for agricultural products — Commission                       v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Decision 90/342/EEC on the selection criteria to be adopted             Bernd Langeheine and Alexander Böhlke ), supported by
for investments eligible for Community assistance —                     Mars GmbH, established in Viersen ( Germany ), represented
Decision ofthe Commission rejecting a financing project —               by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and by John
                                                                        Pheasant, Solicitor, with an address for service in
               Action for annulment and damages)
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, 14a Rue
                             ( 95/C 208/37 )                            de Bains — application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                        Decision 93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                       proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against
                                                                        Langnese-Iglo GmbH ( IV/34.072 ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
In Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri, established in Pesaro                 Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
( Italy ), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of the Padua           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H.
Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.                   Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in
                                                                        which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( agents:
Eugenio de March and Alexandre Carnelutti ) —
application, first, for the annulment, pursuant to Article 1 73         1 . annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/406/EEC
of the EC Treaty, of Decision C ( 92 ) 2264 of 30 September                   of 23 December 1 992 relating to a proceeding pursuant
1992, by which the Commission refused the financing of a                      to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Langnese-Iglo
project submitted by the applicant under Council                              GmbH (IV/34.072);
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
improving the processing and marketing conditions for
agricultural products ( 2 ), and, second, for compensation              2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty for the
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:             3 . orders the applicant to bear all the costs of            the
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and H. Kirschner and A.                        proceedings, including those in respect of             the
Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                       application for interim measures and those of          the
judgment on 18 May 1995 , in which it:                                        intervener, with the exception of one-quarter of       the
                                                                              costs incurred by the defendant;
1 . annuls Decision C (92) 2264 of the Commission of
      30 September 1992;
                                                                        4 . orders the defendant to bear one-quarter of its own
                                                                              costs .
2 . dismisses the claim for damages;
3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 26 . 7. 1993 , p . 19 .
(!) OJ No C 146 , 26 . 5 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 .


title: Case C-145/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 9 April 2008 — Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Athinaïki Tekhniki AE and Evangelos Marinakis v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ipourgos Epikratias

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 9 April 2008 — Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Athinaïki Tekhniki AE and Evangelos Marinakis v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ipourgos Epikratias
   (Case C-145/08)
   (2008/C 142/30)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Athinaïki Tekhniki AE and Evangelos Marinakis

      Defendants: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ipourgos Epikratias
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a contract by which the contracting authority entrusts to the contracting undertaking the management of a casino business and the execution of a development plan consisting in the upgrading of the casino premises and the commercial exploitation of the possibilities offered by the casino's licence, and which contains a term under which the contracting authority is obliged to pay the contracting undertaking compensation should another casino lawfully operate in the wider area in which the casino in question operates, constitute a concession, not governed by Directive 92/50/EEC?

               2.

               If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is answered in the negative: does a legal action which is brought by persons who have participated in the procedure for the award of a public contract of mixed form providing inter alia for the supply of services subject to Annex I B to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209), and in which they plead breach of the principle of equal treatment of participants in tender procedures (a principle affirmed by Article 3(2) of that directive), fall within the field of application of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395), or is its application precluded inasmuch as, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 92/50/EEC, only Articles 14 and 16 of the latter apply to the procedure for the award of the abovementioned contract for the supply of services?

               3.

               If the second question referred for a preliminary ruling is answered in the affirmative: accepting that a national provision in accordance with which only all the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated unsuccessfully in a public procurement procedure can bring a legal action against the act awarding the contract, and not consortium members individually, is not in principle contrary to Community law and specifically to Directive 89/665, and that that still applies where the legal action has initially been brought by all the members of the consortium jointly but ultimately proves, as regards some of them, to be inadmissible, is it in addition necessary, from the viewpoint of application of that directive, to examine, in order to make a declaration of inadmissibility, whether those individual members thereafter retain the right to claim before another national court any damages which may be envisaged by a provision of national law?

               4.

               When it has been held by settled case-law of a national court that an individual member of a consortium may also bring an admissible legal action against an act falling within a public procurement procedure, is it compatible with Directive 89/665/EEC, interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a general principle of Community law, to dismiss a legal action as inadmissible, because of a change to that settled case-law, without the person who has brought that legal action first being given either the opportunity to cure the inadmissibility or, in any event, the opportunity to set out, pursuant to the adversarial principle, his views relating to that issue?


title: Case T-387/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission
   (Case T-387/11)
   2011/C 282/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. (Pétfürdő, Republic of Hungary) (represented by: Z. Tamás and M. Le Berre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested Commission Decision of 27 October 2010 on State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to Péti Nitrogénművek Zrt. (notified under document C(2010) 7274); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           the Commission's failure to apply the market transaction principle;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(1) TFEU;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law (as alternative to the first and second pleas), alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(3)(b)TFEU.


title: Case F-85/14: Action brought on 26 August 2014  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/62

         Action brought on 26 August 2014 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-85/14)
   2014/C 421/90
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Inapplicability of Article 7 of Annex V and Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations and the CEOS and annulment of the decisions withdrawing the reimbursement of travel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin and abolishing travelling time.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 7 of Annex V of the Staff Regulations and Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision not to grant any further travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses to the applicants, from the year 2014 onwards;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-27/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/41

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac
   (Case C-27/10)
   2010/C 63/65
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac

      Other parties to the proceedings: Oy Gust. Ranin, Patentti — ja rekisterihallituksen valituslautakunta

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (‘Regulation (EC) No 110/2008’) applicable to the assessment of the conditions for registration of a trade mark, containing a geographical indication protected by that regulation, which was applied for on 19 December 2001 and registered on 31 December 2003?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is a trade mark which inter alia contains a geographical indication of origin which is protected by Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, or such an indication in the form of a generic term and a translation, and which is registered for spirit drinks which inter alia in the case of their manufacturing method and alcohol content do not meet the requirements set for the use of the geographical indication of origin in question, to be refused as contrary to Articles 16 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008?

               3.

               Regardless of whether or not the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is a trade mark of the type described in Question 2 to be regarded as liable to mislead the public for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services, in the way referred to in Article 3(1)(g) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, currently Directive 2008/95/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (‘Directive 89/104/EEC’)?

               4.

               Regardless of the answer to Question 1, if a Member State has, on the basis of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC, decreed that a trade mark shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid if the use of the trade mark can be prohibited by virtue of legislation other than the trade mark law of the Member State in question or Community law, is the view to be taken that, if the trade mark registration contains elements which infringe Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, on the basis of which the use of the trade mark can be prohibited, such a trade mark shall not be registered?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1; OJ, Special Edition 1994, 13/Volume 17, L 178.

      (3)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-32/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/58/EC — Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-32/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/58/EC - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 57/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-32/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U.Wölker and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 January 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001 amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relating to dangerous substances in implementation of Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data sheets), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2000 in Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Non-admission to the tests — Conditions of admission — Professional experience — Candidate's file — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
C 108/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                 of 26 October 2000
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
                                                                          in Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                                          designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘Investorworld’ — Absolute
                                                                                ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG, formerly Touch-
                                                                          down Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH,
                       of 26 October 2000                                 established in Munich, Germany, represented by F. Bahr and
                                                                          F. Cordt-Terzi, of the Munich Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
in Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation v Office for                      Marie-Thérèse, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Mühlendahl, D. Schennen, and E. Joly) — application for
                                                                          annulment of the decision of the third Board of Appeal of the
(Community trade mark — The term TRUSTEDLINK —                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation               and designs) of 15 October 1999 (Case R 204/1999-3) refusing
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                  registration of the word ‘Investorworld’ as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                         (2001/C 108/30)                                  P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000 in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)                        1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation, established in
Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by
                                                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.00.
R. Collin, M.-C. Mitchell and É. Logeais, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Miranda de Sousa and A. Di Carlo
) — application for annulment of the decision of 17 September
1999 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) (Case R 163/1998-3) refusing the registration of the
term TRUSTEDLINK as a Community trade mark — the Court                                         of 28 November 2000
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                      in Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci v Commission of
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                  the European Communities (1)
judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                          (Competition — Non-admission to the tests — Conditions
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          of admission — Professional experience — Candidate’s file
                                                                                — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/32)
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci, residing at Jesi (Italy),
                                                                          represented by M. Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar, with an
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/19
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
J. Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden, v Commission of the European                                              INSTANCE
Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision of the selection board not to                                           of 8 December 2000
admit the applicant to the written tests in open competition
COM/A/12/98 and, second, for an order requiring the defend-
                                                                            in Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof and Others v
ant to pay damages — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
28 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                                ation — State aid — Prima facie case — Urgency)
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/34)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), BP Direct vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), and Actomat BV, established in
                                                                            Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by M. van Empel and
                                                                            M. Smeets, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Harles, Arendt &
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
                                                                            Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra), v Com-
                        of 16 October 2000                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            H.M.H. Speyart) — application for partial suspension of
in Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission                         operation of the Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of
               of the European Communities (1)                              20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
                                                                            for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance made an order on 8 December 2000, the operative
                          (2001/C 108/33)                                   part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA, established at
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
Venice Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet,
A. Abate and E. Cappelli) — application for annulment of
the Commission’s decision C(1999) 1524 of 2 June 1999                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
concerning State aid granted by the Italian Government to                                                INSTANCE
Seleco SpA, inasmuch as it considers the applicant to be jointly
and severally liable to repay that part of the aid which has not                                 of 14 December 2000
been recovered from Seleco — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                 in Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging
President, and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and                      voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Com-
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            mission of the European Communities
16 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case             (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
      T-195/99 SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission in favour of the               ation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank
      Court of Justice, in order that the latter Court may rule on the                           guarantee — Urgency)
      application for annulment.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/35)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
                                                                            Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied, established in The


title: Joined Cases C-58/10 to C-68/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Monsanto SAS and Others v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche (Agriculture — Genetically modified animal feed — Emergency measures — Measure adopted by a Member State — Provisional suspension of an authorisation granted pursuant to Directive 90/220/EEC — Legal basis — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 12 — Sectoral legislation — Article 23 — Safeguard clause — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 20 — Existing products — Article 34 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Articles 53 and 54 — Conditions of application)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Monsanto SAS and Others v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
   (Joined Cases C-58/10 to C-68/10) (1)

   (Agriculture - Genetically modified animal feed - Emergency measures - Measure adopted by a Member State - Provisional suspension of an authorisation granted pursuant to Directive 90/220/EEC - Legal basis - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 12 - Sectoral legislation - Article 23 - Safeguard clause - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Article 34 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Articles 53 and 54 - Conditions of application)
   2011/C 311/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Monsanto SAS (C-58/10 and C-59/10), Monsanto Agriculture France SAS (C-58/10 and C-59/10), Monsanto International SARL (C-58/10 and C-59/10), Monsanto Technology LLC (C-58/10 and C-59/10), Monsanto Europe SA (C-59/10), Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) (C-60/10), Malaprade SCEA and Others (C-61/10), Pioneer Génétique SARL (C-62/10), Pioneer Semences SAS (C-62/10), Union française des semenciers (UFS), formerly Syndicat des établissements de semences agréés pour les semences de maïs (Seproma) (C-63/10), Caussade Semences SA (C-64/10), Limagrain Europe SA, formerly Limagrain Verneuil Holding SA (C-65/10), Maïsadour Semences SA (C-66/10), Ragt Semences SA (C-67/10), Euralis Semences SAS (C-68/10), Euralis Coop (C-68/10)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

      Intervening parties: Association France Nature Environnement (C-59/10 and C-60/10), Confédération paysanne (C-60/10)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1), Articles 12 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) and Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1) — Provisional suspension or prohibition on the use or sale of varieties of maize seed derived from a genetically modified maize line, after authorisation to place that product on the market — Power of the national authorities to adopt such measures — Concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘serious risk’ to the environment — Criteria for identifying the risk, evaluating its probability and assessing its effects

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those of the disputes in the main proceedings, genetically modified organisms such as MON 810 maize, which were authorised as, inter alia, seeds for the purpose of planting under Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and which were notified as existing products in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, and were subsequently the subject of a pending application for renewal of authorisation, may not have their use or sale provisionally suspended or prohibited, by a Member State, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220; such measures may, however, be adopted pursuant to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003.

               2.

               Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 authorises a Member State to adopt emergency measures only in accordance with the procedural conditions set out in Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, compliance with which it is for the national court to ascertain.

               3.

               With a view to the adoption of emergency measures, Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 requires Member States to establish, in addition to urgency, the existence of a situation which is likely to constitute a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-413/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Prato (Italy), lodged on 18 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti and Concetta Zungri

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/23

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Prato (Italy), lodged on 18 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti and Concetta Zungri
      (Case C-413/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/40)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Ordinario di Prato

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti and Concetta Zungri

         Question referred

      Are the Italian rules on the collection of bets contained in Article 4 of Law No 401/89 and Article 88 of Royal Decree No 773/31, as amended by Article 37(4) and (5) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, Article 38 of Decree Law No 223/06 and Article 23 of the model agreement published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 August 2006, compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?


title: Case C-531/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obersten Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2007 — Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obersten Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2007 — Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft v LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-531/07)
   (2008/C 37/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Obersten Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fachverband der Buch- und Medienwirtschaft

      Defendant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 28 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application per se of national provisions which oblige only importers of German language books to fix and to publish a retail price for books imported into Austria which is binding on the retailer, where the importer cannot fix a retail price which is lower than the retail price fixed or recommended by the publisher for the State in which the book is published, or lower than the retail price recommended for his national territory by a publisher whose seat is not in the territory of a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), less any value added tax such price includes, but, by way of exception, permit an importer who purchases in the territory of a Contracting Party to the EEA at a price lower than the usual purchase prices to sell at less than the price fixed or recommended by the publisher for the State of publication — or in the case of re-imports the price fixed by the Austrian publisher — by an amount proportionate to the commercial advantage he has obtained?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Is the national statutory obligation to sell books at the fixed price which, according to the first question, is per se incompatible with Article 28 EC — in any event on the basis that it constitutes selling arrangements which infringe free movement of goods — justified by reference to Article 30 or Article 151 EC, on the basis that its purpose is, very generally, described as the need to have regard to ‘the status of books as cultural assets, consumers' interest in reasonable prices for books, and the commercial characteristics of the book trade’, for example having regard to a general interest in encouraging the production of books, a diversity of titles at regulated prices, and a diversity of bookshops, notwithstanding the lack of empirical data which could prove that a statutory obligation to sell books at the fixed price is a suitable means for achieving the intended purposes?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the negative:
               Is the national statutory obligation to sell books at the fixed price, as described in the first question, compatible with Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 10 EC and 81 EC, notwithstanding that in terms of time and substance there was a seamless transition from them to the previous contractual obligation on booksellers to sell at prices fixed by publishers for published works (the 1993 reverse collection scheme), and they replaced this contractual scheme?


title: Case T-196/99: Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A. and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/29
— Abuse of process, inasmuch as it would be for the Court,               — declare the Council liable for the loss and damage caused
     in any event, to establish, in the course of proceedings for            by its failure to contest the TAC, adopted within NAFO, of
     failure to fulfil obligations, whether the conduct of a                 27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut for 1995;
     Member State was apt to remedy breaches alleged in
     connection with an aid procedure or not.                            — declare the Council and the Commission liable for the loss
                                                                             and damage arising from the approval given to the signing
Finally, the applicant claims that the obligation to state reasons           of the bilateral Agreement between the EC and Canada and
was breached.                                                                the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1761/95;
                                                                         — declare the Council and/or the Commission liable for the
                                                                             loss and damage caused by all or any of the acts of
                                                                             either of those institutions as described in the preceding
                                                                             paragraphs;
Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A.
and Others against the Council of the European Union                     — order the Commission and the Council to pay compen-
    and the Commission of the European Communities                           sation for the losses suffered by the applicants as a result
                                                                             of the acts of both those institutions;
                         (Case T-196/99)
                                                                         — declare that the Commission and the Council are strictly
                        (1999/C 333/68)                                      liable, even in the absence of any fault or unlawful act, and
                                                                             order them to pay compensation for the loss and damage
                                                                             caused;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         — fix the amount of the compensation payable in relation to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             the damage suffered by the applicants in 1995 in a
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                             minimum sum — corresponding to the criteria set out
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               in the application in the present case — of between
on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A., established in Vigo,                  23 836 750 euro and 50 393 979 euro;
Pontevedra, Spain, Armadora José Pereira S.A., established in
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán S.A.,
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Centropesca S.A.,                — order the parties to agree between them the amount of the
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Chymar S.A., estab-                  compensation payable in respect of the damage suffered
lished in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Eloymar S.A., established in              by the applicants in the years following 1995, on the basis
Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain, Exfaumar S.A., established in                  that such amount is to be reviewed and, if necessary,
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain, Farpespan S.L., established in Moaña,              modified by the Court;
Pontevedra, Spain, Freiremar S.A., established in Vigo, Ponte-
vedra, Spain, Hermanos Gandón S.A., established in Cangas,              — fix the amount of the compensation payable in respect of
Pontevedra, Spain, Heroya S.A., established in Vigo, Ponteve-                the non-material damage suffered by the applicants, which
dra, Spain, Hio Pesca S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,                 should in their view total 25 000 euro in relation to each
Spain, José Pereira e Hijos S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,           vessel concerned;
Spain, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Moradiña S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,                — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay to the
Navales Cerdeiras S.A., established in Camariñas, La Coruña,               applicants the whole of the costs incurred by the applicants
Spain, Nugago Pesca S.A., established in Bueu, Pontevedra,                   in the proceedings.
Spain, Pesquera Austral S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,
Spain, Pescaberbés S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Cı́es S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pesca Herculina S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Inter S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquerı́as Marinenses S.A., established in Marı́n, Pontevedra,          The applicants in the present case claim that they should be
Spain, Pesquerı́as Tara S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra,         paid compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them,
Spain, Pesquera Vaqueiro S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,          which has been caused by the unlawful and negligent way in
Spain, and Sotelo Dios S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,            which, according to them, the Council and the Commission
Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona           have acted in the so-called ‘halibut war’. In their submission,
Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn,             there are three specific masters giving rise to non-contractual
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service c/o Cabinet               liability:
Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
                                                                         — the negotiations conducted by the Commission at the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                             NAFO meeting in September 1994, which culminated in
— declare the Commission liable for the loss and damage                      the regulation by NAFO of fishing for Greenland halibut
     arising from its conduct in the course of the negotiations              and the adoption of a TAC for Greenland halibut in 1995;
     held within the framework of the NAFO Convention with
     a view to establishing a TAC for Greenland halibut for              — the failure by the Council to oppose the proposed TAC of
     1995;                                                                   27 000 metric tonnes for Greenland halibut; and
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
— the proposal by the Commission, and the approval thereof               European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Anthony
    by the Council, regarding the signing of the bilateral               Gooch, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
    Agreement between the EC and Canada, inasmuch as it                  Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
    establishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for the EC from           sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    16 April 1995, and the adoption of Regulation (EC)                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
    No 1761/95 amending Regulation (EC) No 3366/94, by
    hich provision is made for certain conservation and
    management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    ory Area defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral
    Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ                 — annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s
    L 171 of 21.7.1995).                                                     request for compensation dated 28 April 1998;
In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that:                — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                             BEF 154 109, together with default interest at the annual
— the Commission has acted unlawfully, on account of                         rate of 8 % from 28 April 1998;
    the alleged serious shortcomings in its handling of the
    negotiations held within the framework of the NAFO
    Convention in September 1994 with a view to the                      — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    adoption of a series of measures for the administration and
    conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory
    Area. The said unlawfulness is based, in precise terms, on
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
    such grounds as its failure to defend the interests of the
    Community, lack of information and poor management
    on the part of the Community delegation and the adoption             The applicant entered into service with the Commission on
    of a TAC based on criteria other than those traditionally            1 September 1995. The applicant’s place of recruitment and
    applied;                                                             of origin was initially fixed as being London. On 20 September
                                                                         1996 the applicant submitted a request for exemption from
— the Council has acted unlawfully by accepting, without                 value added tax (VAT) in respect of the purchase of a car. By
    any reservation whatever, the forecasts contained in Article         note dated 23 September 1996 the Head of the Unit respon-
    XII of the NAFO Convention and the proposal by the                   sible for Management of Individual Rights decided to change
    NAFO Fisheries Commission that a total allowable catch of            the applicant’s place of recruitment from London to Brussels.
    27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut be established,            On 27 July 1997, following the lodging of a complaint, that
    when, in the applicants’ view, that position was contrary            department drew up a ‘file note’ (re)fixing London as the
    to the interests of the Community;                                   applicant’s place of recruitment.
— the institutions acted unlawfully in the negotiation and
    ratification of the bilateral fisheries Agreement between            Following that change in the fixing of the applicant’s place of
    Canada and the EC and in proposing and approving                     origin, the Commission on 27 July 1997 sent the request for
    Regulation (EC) No 1761/95, cited above, which esta-                 exemption from VAT to the Belgian authorities, who refused
    blishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for catches of                to act on it, on the ground that it was out of time. According
    Greenland halibut by the Community fleet with effect from            to the Belgian rules, any request by the applicant for exemption
    16 April 1995.                                                       should have been submitted before 20 November 1996. The
                                                                         applicant thereafter paid the sum of BEF 154 109 in respect
In the alternative, the applicants plead strict liability on the         of VAT, in accordance with instructions given by the Head of
part of the Community on account of their having committed               the Unit. However, the Commission has not reimbursed that
a breach of the principle of equal distribution of public                VAT to him.
burdens.
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations;
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     — breach of the principle of sound management and good
                                                                             administration;
                         (Case T-197/99)
                                                                         — failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
                         (1999/C 333/69)                                     welfare and interests of officials; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — failure to comply with Article 288(2) EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-292/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-292/17)
   (2017/C 249/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Question referred

   Is a flight cancellation still caused by an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 (1) when the circumstances (here, ‘wildcat strike’ or ‘wave of illness’) only indirectly affect the flight in question in that they prompted the air carrier to reschedule its entire flight plan and the new schedule includes the scheduled cancellation of that specific flight? Can an air carrier avoid liability under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 where the flight in question, had it not been rescheduled, could have been operated because the crew planned for that flight would have been available if it had not been assigned to other flights through rescheduling?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-116/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on  28 February 2006  — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
   (Case C-116/06)
   (2006/C 121/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Tampereen käräjäoikeus (Finland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sari Kiiski

      Defendant: Tampereen kaupunki
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it direct or indirect discrimination contrary to Article 2 of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC (2), for an employer to refuse to make changes to the date of child-care leave which has been granted to an employee or to interrupt it as a result of a new pregnancy of which the employee has become aware before the start of the child-care leave, in accordance with the settled interpretation of national provisions according to which a new pregnancy is not generally an unforeseen and justified ground on the basis of which the date and duration of child-care leave may be altered?

               2.

               May an employer sufficiently justify his conduct, described in point 1, which possibly constitutes indirect discrimination, from the point of view of that directive by the fact that ordinary problems but not ones giving rise to serious disturbances would be connected with changing teachers' working arrangements and continuity of teaching, or that the employer would under the national provisions have to compensate the person replacing the teacher on child-care leave for the loss of pay incurred if the teacher on child-care leave were to return to work in the middle of the child-care leave?

               3.

               Can Directive 92/85/EEC (3) on measures for the protection of pregnant workers and certain other workers be applicable, and, if that directive can be applicable, is the employer's conduct described in point 1 contrary to Articles 8 and 11 of that directive, if with child-care leave continuing the employee has lost her opportunity of enjoying the employment-based pay benefits of maternity leave?

      (1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).

      (2)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).

      (3)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).


title: Case C-74/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice v Berlaymont 2000 SA

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 18 February 2009 — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice v Berlaymont 2000 SA
   (Case C-74/09)
   2009/C 102/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bâtiments et Ponts Construction, Thyssenkrupp Industrieservice

      Defendant: Berlaymont 2000

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the obligation to hold a registration in order to be awarded a public contract in Belgium, such as that imposed by Article 1.G of the special conditions applicable in the present case, contrary to the principle of freedom of movement within the European Union and to the second paragraph of Article 24 of 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) if it had to be interpreted as permitting the Belgian contracting authority to exclude from the tender procedure a foreign contractor who does not hold a registration but has produced equivalent certificates from his national authorities?

               2.

               Is it contrary to the principle of freedom of movement within the European Union and to the second paragraph of Article 24 of 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts to grant a Belgian contracting authority the power to require foreign tenderers to submit to a Belgian authority — the committee for the registration of contractors — for assessment of the validity of the certificates which have been issued to them by the tax and social security authorities of their State, attesting that they have fulfilled the obligations imposed on them relating to tax and social security?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.


title: Case T-129/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential tariffs — Decision to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU — Action for annulment — Act not subject to appeal — Aid measure implemented in full prior to the date on which the action was brought — Inadmissible)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission
   (Case T-129/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariffs - Decision to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Aid measure implemented in full prior to the date on which the action was brought - Inadmissible))
   2014/C 421/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucarest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucarest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 to open the proceedings provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning State Aid SA 33451 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Romania — Preferential tariffs in contracts between Hidroelectrica SA and electricity suppliers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alpiq RomIndustries Srl and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case T-183/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Poland v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Emissions trading system for greenhouse gas allowances — National allocation plan for emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Three month time-limit — Respective powers of the Member States and the Commission — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons — Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/58

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-183/07) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Emissions trading system for greenhouse gas allowances - National allocation plan for emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Three month time-limit - Respective powers of the Member States and the Commission - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons - Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87)
   2009/C 267/100
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, then by T. Nowakowski, then by T. Kozek, then by M. Dowgielewicz, and finally by M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, R. Somssich and M. Fehér, acting as Agents); Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent); and the Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: Z. Bryanston-Cross and C. Gibbs, acting as Agents, assisted by H. Mercer, Barrister, then by I. Rao and S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Maurici, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment, in whole or in part of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.