title: Case T-333/10: Action brought on 17 August 2010 — ATC and Others v Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/28

         Action brought on 17 August 2010 — ATC and Others v Commission
   (Case T-333/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Animal Trading Company (ATC) BV (Loon op Zand, Netherlands), Avicentra NV (Malle, Belgium), Borgstein Birds and Zoofood Trading VOF (Wamel, Netherlands), Bird Trading Company Van der Stappen BV (Dongen, Netherlands), New Little Bird’s srl (Anagni, Italy), Vogelhuis Kloeg (Zevenbergen, Netherlands) and Pistone Giovanni (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: M. Osse and J. Houdijk, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the adoption of Decision 2005/760/EC, (1) and/or the extension thereof by way of Decision 2005/862/EC, (2) and/or Decision 2006/79/EC, (3) and/or Decision 2006/405/EC, (4) and/or Decision 2006/522/EC, (5) and/or Decision 2007/21/EC, (6) and/or Decision 2007/183/EC, (7) and/or the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 318/2007; (8)

               —

               order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the extra-judicial costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek compensation for the harm which they have suffered as a result of, first, the ban on the importation of birds caught in the wild, which entered into effect in October 2005, second, the extensions of that ban, and, third, the restrictions which have been in force since 1 July 2007 on the importation of birds and which, de facto, continue the prohibition of the importation of birds caught in the wild.
   With regard to the first part of their application for compensation, which concerns the adoption of Decision 2005/760/EC, the applicants put forward three pleas.
   First, the applicants submit that the Commission had only a very limited margin of discretion in exercising its powers under Article 18 of Directive 91/496 (9) and that the Commission exceeded those powers by prohibiting imports from countries in which there had been no incidences of infection with avian influenza or in which there had been no concrete risk of contamination.
   Second, the applicants contend that, even if the Commission did have a broader margin of discretion when exercising its powers, it none the less committed a sufficiently serious breach. In this connection, the applicants submit that the Commission misconstrued its powers, infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, disregarded the right of property and the freedom to carry out an economic activity, and committed an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   The applicants then go on to submit that they have suffered genuine and certain damage and that there is a causal connection between that damage and the Commission’s unlawful actions.
   Third, the applicants contend that the damage which they have suffered is abnormal and specific in character in that it goes beyond the limits of the economic risks associated with the activities in the sector concerned. The introduction of a total ban on imports of wild birds was, in the applicants’ view, not foreseeable and had a particularly adverse effect on dealers in wild birds. The applicants also seek to establish liability on the Commission’s part even in the event that it is adjudged to have acted correctly.
   In the second part of their application for compensation, the applicants seek compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the extensions of the ban on the importation of wild birds from non-member countries. They rely, in this connection, on the same three pleas as those invoked in the first part of their application for compensation.
   Finally, the applicants seek compensation in respect of the harm which they have suffered as a result of Regulation (EC) No 318/2007, which provides that the importation of birds is to be restricted to birds which have been bred in captivity and which originate in a very small number of non-member countries. The applicants put forward three pleas in law in this regard.
   First, the applicants contend that Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 does not have an adequately defined legal basis. They submit that Directives 91/496 and 92/65 (10) do not contain any legal basis for the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 by the Commission.
   Second, the applicants allege that there has been an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, in addition to a breach of the freedom of enterprise and the right to property.
   The applicants continue by submitting that they have suffered genuine and certain damage and that there is a causal connection between that damage and the Commission’s unlawful actions.
   Third, the applicants also request that, in the event that it should be assumed that the Commission acted correctly, the General Court rule that the Commission is liable for the damage suffered as a result of Regulation (EC) No 318/2007.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2005/760/EC of 27 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain third countries for the import of captive birds (OJ 2005 L 285, p. 60).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2005/862/EC of 30 November 2005 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC relating to measures to combat avian influenza in birds other than poultry (OJ 2005 L 317, p. 19).

      (3)  Commission Decision 2006/79/EC of 31 January 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards an extension of their period of application (OJ 2006 L 36, p. 48).

      (4)  Commission Decision 2006/405/EC of 7 June 2006 amending Decisions 2005/710/EC, 2005/734/EC, 2005/758/EC, 2005/759/EC, 2005/760/EC, 2006/247/EC and 2006/265/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza (OJ 2006 L 158, p. 14).

      (5)  Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28).

      (6)  Commission Decision 2007/21/EC of 22 December 2006 amending Decision 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and imports of birds other than poultry into the Community (OJ 2007 L 7, p. 44).

      (7)  Commission Decision 2007/183/EC of 23 March 2007 amending Decision 2005/760/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain third countries for the import of captive birds (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 44).

      (8)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7).

      (9)  Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 56).

      (10)  Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (OJ 1992 L 268, p. 54).


title: Case C-351/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct — Payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union — Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest — Action for annulment — Challengeable acts — Effective judicial protection)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA
   (Case C-351/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct - Payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Effective judicial protection))
   (2017/C 070/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Perrin, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA;

               3.

               Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-4/06: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Poland v Commission (Agriculture — Act of Accession 2003 — Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 — 2004/2005 marketing year — Additional levy — Setting of two coefficients — Competence — Legal basis — Empowering measure — Obligation to give reasons — Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-4/06) (1)

   (Agriculture - Act of Accession 2003 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 - 2004/2005 marketing year - Additional levy - Setting of two coefficients - Competence - Legal basis - Empowering measure - Obligation to give reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)
   2011/C 331/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by J. Pietras, later by E. Osśiecka-Tamecka, later by: T. Nowakowski, later by M. Dowgielewicz, B. Majczyna and P. Rosniak and finally, by: B. Majczyna, M. Szpunnar and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Szmytkowska, C. Cattabriga and F. Erlbacher, later, by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12), as amended by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-470/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien: Universale-Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hinteregger & Söhne Bauges. mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH, v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GesmbH (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Definition of "contracting authority" — Body governed by public law — Restricted procedure — Rules for weighting of criteria for selecting candidates invited to tender — Advertisement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to public procurement — Time-limits for review)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 19/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Articles 7, 14, 16(1) and (3) and 17 to 19 of that convention
                                                                                are not referred to therein;
                       of 10 December 2002                                   2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                             3.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the
in Case C-29/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(International agreements — Convention on Nuclear Safety
— Accession decision — Compatibility with the Euratom
Treaty — External competence of the Community —
             Articles 30 to 39 of the Euratom Treaty)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2003/C 19/01)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                  of 12 December 2002
                                                                             in Case C-470/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien: Universale-
                                                                             Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hinteregger & Söhne
In Case C-29/99, Commission of the European Communities                      Bauges. mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN Hoch- und
(Agents: T. F. Cusack and L. Ström) v Council of the European                Tiefbau GmbH, v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, F. Anton and A. P. Feeney):                                                    GesmbH ( 1)
Application for annulment in part of the Council Decision of
7 December 1998 approving the accession of the European
                                                                             (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Defi-
Atomic Energy Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention,                    nition of ‘contracting authority’ — Body governed by public
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  law — Restricted procedure — Rules for weighting of
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents
                                                                             criteria for selecting candidates invited to tender — Adver-
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      tisement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von
                                                                                relating to public procurement — Time-limits for review)
Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in                                                   (2003/C 19/02)
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.     Annuls the third paragraph of the declaration made by the             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       European Atomic Energy Community according to the pro-                                     in the European Court Reports)
       visions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Nuclear Safety Convention,
       which is attached to the Council Decision of 7 December 1998
       approving the accession of the European Atomic Energy                 In Case C-470/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention, in so far as              EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Universale-Bau AG, Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Hin-
teregger & Söhne Bauges.mbH Salzburg, 2. ÖSTU-STETTIN
Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH, and Entsorgungsbetriebe Sim-
mering GesmbH, on the interpretation of Article 1(a), (b) and                                        of 10 December 2002
(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), and Council Directive 89/
665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the                        in Case C-153/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the               the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste aanleg
application of review procedures to the award of public supply                              te Turnhout): Paul der Weduwe ( 1)
and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended
by 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, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                   (Freedom to provide services — Banking activities —
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                      Employee of a credit institution established in a Member
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), and                        State and canvassing for clients in another Member State —
F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                     National legislation on banking secrecy — Refusal to answer
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                 questions and to give evidence in a judicial investigation)
on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (2003/C 19/03)
1.     A body which was not established to satisfy specific needs in
       the general interest not having an industrial or commercial
       character, but which has subsequently taken responsibility for
       such needs, which it has since satisfied, fulfils the requirement                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
       of the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of
       Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
       coordination of procedures for the award of public works
       contracts so as to be regarded as a body governed by public law        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       within the meaning of that provision, on condition that the                                in the European Court Reports)
       assumption of responsibility for the satisfaction of those needs
       can be established objectively.
2.     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     In Case C-153/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended          EC by the Onderzoeksrechter in de Rechtbank van eerste
       by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to             aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
       the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         the criminal proceedings before that court against Paul der
       contracts, does not preclude national legislation which provides       Weduwe, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC, the Court,
       that any application for review of a contracting authority’s           composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Third and
       decision must be commenced within a time-limit laid down to            the Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,
       that effect and that any irregularity in the award procedure           R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
       relied upon in support of such application must be raised within       bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
       the same period, if it is not to be out of time, with the result       P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
       that, when that period has passed, it is no longer possible to         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
       challenge such a decision or to raise such an irregularity,            H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
       provided that the time-limit in question is reasonable.                a judgment on 10 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
3.     Directive 93/37 is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in
       the context of a restricted procedure, the contracting authority       The reference for a preliminary ruling by the Onderzoeksrechter in de
       has laid down in advance the rules for weighting the criteria for      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium), by order of
       selecting the candidates who will be invited to tender, it is          13 April 2000, is inadmissible.
       obliged to state them in the contract notice or tender documents.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-459/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McBride v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/40

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McBride v Commission
   (Case T-459/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hugh McBride (Downings, Ireland) (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4748 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new fishing vessel, the Heather Jane II, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4748 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new fishing vessel, the Heather Jane II, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission breached an essential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursuant to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceeded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application on the basis, of the use of replacement capacity from a number of smaller vessels for the Heather Jane II, meant there was no increase in the total capacity of the polyvalent segment of the Irish fleet when that vessel was registered is unfounded.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to good administration. It is submitted that Commission’s refusal to assess the merits of his application constitutes a breach of its obligations under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular, of his right to have his application, under Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, assessed ‘fairly and within a reasonable time’.


title: Case T-59/11: Action brought on 31 January 2011 — ISOTIS v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/24

         Action brought on 31 January 2011 — ISOTIS v Commission
   (Case T-59/11)
   2011/C 89/47
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Information Society open to impairmentS — ISOTIS (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant asks the General Court to:

               —

               Declare that the applicant has in no way infringed Article ΙΙ.16.2 of the general conditions of the FP6 contracts, Articles ΙΙ.7.3 (serious financial regularity) and ΙΙ.7.4 (false declarations) of the general conditions of the eTEN contracts and Article ΙΙ.10.3 (breach of contract and failure to provide information) of the general conditions of the CIP contracts;

               —

               Declare that by calling into question the eligibility of the applicant’s costs the Commission has infringed the contracts in question;

               —

               Declare that the costs amounting to EUR 932 362,44 which the applicant submitted to the Commission in connection with the ACCESS-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, EMERGE, ENABLE, ASK-IT, NAVIGABILE, EURIDICE and T-SENIORITY contracts are eligible costs and that the applicant is not obliged to repay the sums contributed by the Commission;

               —

               Declare that Commission’s delay in paying the final funding payments in respect of the EU4ALL, ASK-IT and ENABLE contracts constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations;

               —

               Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 52 584,05 in interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the EU4ALL contract;

               —

               Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 678,61 in interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the ASK-IT contract;

               —

               Declare that the Commission must pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 11 693,05 interest from the notification of this action, in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the ENABLE contract;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of this action, which is based on (1) the arbitration clauses in the contracts in question and (2) on Belgian law, which governs the contracts in question, the applicant puts forward two arguments.
   First, the applicant maintains that the costs which it submitted to the Commission were eligible costs and that it has not infringed its contractual obligations. In particular, the applicant maintains that the objections which the Commission sent to it after the financial audit checks on the ACCESS-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, EMERGE, ENABLE, ASK-IT, NAVIGABILE, EURIDICE and T-SENIORITY programmes in respect of its economic management and the eligibility of its costs are wholly unfounded. Accordingly, there was no infringement of its contractual obligations and all of its costs must be declared to be eligible costs.
   Second, by calling into question the eligibility of the costs and by delaying the payment of certain costs the Commission is in breach of its contractual obligations. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s questioning of the eligibility of the costs constitutes a breach of contract, contrary to the principle of good faith and an abuse of rights, because the findings which were drawn from the financial audit were entirely unsupported, vague and general. Moreover, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s delay in paying the final funding payments in respect of the EU4ALL, ASK-IT and ENABLE contracts constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations and the applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission is obliged to make payment.


title: Case C-596/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Value Added Tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Application of reduced VAT rates to transactions concerning equidae and in particular to horses)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/2

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-596/10) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Value Added Tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of reduced VAT rates to transactions concerning equidae and in particular to horses)
   2012/C 126/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and M. Alfonso, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J.-S. Pilczer and B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agents)

      Intervener: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, agent and N. Travers and G. Clohessy, barristers)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 to 99 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of a reduced rate of VAT to equidae and in particular to horses

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying reduced rates of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and, in particular, to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case F-114/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Rodrigues Regalo Corrêa v Parliament (Civil Service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for grant — Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Rodrigues Regalo Corrêa v Parliament
   (Case F-114/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for grant - Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source - Action manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 252/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: João Manuel Rodrigues Regalo Corrêa (Kehlen, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and V. Montebello-Bemogeot, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the decision of the Parliament to consider certain financial aid from a Member State to students in higher education to be allowances of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct that financial aid from the education allowance granted to the applicant and annulment of the decision to seek repayment of sums unduly paid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action brought by Mr Rodrigues Regalo Corrêa is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.

               2.

               Mr Rodrigues Regalo Corrêa shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 28.


title: Case C-54/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/20

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission
   (Case C-54/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Trefilerías Quijano SA in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-576/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-427/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).


title: Case T-581/10: Action brought on 23 December 2010 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Brawn (X-Undergear)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/29

         Action brought on 23 December 2010 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Brawn (X-Undergear)
   (Case T-581/10)
   2011/C 63/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Brawn LLC (Weekhawken, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in Case R 1580/2009-1;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘X-Undergear’ for goods and services in Classes 23 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Brawn LLC.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word mark ‘UNDERGEAR’ for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-340/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/4/EC — Public access to environmental information — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-340/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/4/EC - Public access to environmental information - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 199/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted within the period prescribed all the provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               By not adopting within the period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case F-144/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Pedersen v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Pedersen v Commission
   (Case F-144/12) (1)

   (2016/C 222/59)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2013, p. 77.


title: Case C-176/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Combating nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure for the adoption of the act — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, European Commission
   (Case C-176/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 145/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Mellat (represented by: M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley and V. Zaiwalla, Barristers, and by Z. Burbeza, P. Reddy, S. Zaiwalla and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Mellat in both sets of proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs in both sets of proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-428/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry v Office of Fair Trading (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Practice of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry v Office of Fair Trading
   (Case C-428/11) (1)

   (Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Practice of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind)
   2012/C 379/18
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry

      Defendant: Office of Fair Trading

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Annex I, paragraph 31, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-business commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair — Practice whereby a consumer is informed that he has won a prize and various methods of claiming it are suggested to him that require him to incur a cost, which varies according to the method chosen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Paragraph 31, second indent, of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as prohibiting aggressive practices by which traders, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, give the false impression that the consumer has already won a prize, while the taking of any action in relation to claiming that prize, be it requesting information concerning the nature of that prize or taking possession of it, is subject to an obligation on the consumer to pay money or to incur any cost whatsoever;
   It is irrelevant that the cost imposed on the consumer, such as the cost of a stamp, is de minimis compared with the value of the prize or that it does not procure the trader any benefit;
   It is also irrelevant that the trader offers the consumer a number of methods by which he may claim the prize, at least one of which is free of charge, if, according to one or more of the proposed methods, the consumer would incur a cost in order to obtain information on the prize or how to acquire it;
   It is for the national courts to assess the information provided to consumers in the light of recitals 18 and 19 in the preamble to Directive 2005/29 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof, that is to say, by taking into account whether that information is clear and can be understood by the public targeted by the practice.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-270/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common agricultural policy — Fees relating to veterinary inspections and controls — Directive 85/73/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-270/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common agricultural policy - Fees relating to veterinary inspections and controls - Directive 85/73/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004)
   2009/C 113/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1 and Article 5(3) and (4) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 31), and of Article 27(2), (4) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 776/2006 of 23 May 2006 (OJ 2006 L 136, p. 3) — National rules on the health inspection of meat also allowing, over and above the Community fee, the collection of an additional specific fee equivalent to the costs of bacteriological examinations of fresh meat

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


C 113/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11.4.98
      Removal from the register of Case T-193/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-245/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/55)                                                      (98/C 113/57)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First             By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Case T-193/97: Heinrich Mehlhop v. Council of the                  removal from the register of Case T-245/97: Kaufhof
European Union and Commission of the European                      Warenhaus AG v. Commission of the European
Communities.                                                       Communities.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case T-239/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case T-265/97 (1)
                        (98/C 113/56)                                                      (98/C 113/58)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             By order of 5 March 1998 the President of the Third
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-239/97: Christos Venetidis v. European Parliament.          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-265/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.                                           European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case T-498/09 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2009 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 September 2009 in Case F-102/07, Kerstens v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/35

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2009 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 September 2009 in Case F-102/07, Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-498/09 P)
   2010/C 51/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 29 September 2009, delivered in Case F-102/07 Kerstens v Commission, by which the CST dismissed as unfounded an action seeking the annulment of various Commission decisions concerning the award to the applicant of directorate general priority points (PPDG) and/or priority points in recognition of additional tasks carried out in the interests of the institution (PPII) under the 2004, 2005 and 2006 promotion exercises.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits two grounds of appeal alleging

               —

               that the CST erred in law in the application of the principle of equal treatment, of Article 5 of the General Provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the criteria laid down by the director of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements in respect of the award of priority points for the 2005 promotion exercise under the abovementioned provision, and that the evidence was distorted;

               —

               that the rights of the defence were not observed in so far as the CST based its decision on an alleged extract from a 2004 Career Development Report which was not produced and could not be challenged by the parties.


title: Case F-94/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — F v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2006 — F v Commission
   (Case F-94/06)
   (2006/C 237/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: F (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Van Rossum, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of DG ADMIN/C ‘Social welfare policy, Luxembourg staff, health, safety’ of 23 February 2006 to retire the applicant and to award him an invalidity allowance fixed in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retrospective effect from 1 February 2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant a sum assessed on equitable principles at EUR 15 000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant puts forward very similar pleas to those in Case F-44/06 (1), which he also brought.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 25.


title: Case C-248/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014  — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Admissibility of the action for annulment — Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/2

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission
   (Case C-248/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Admissibility of the action for annulment - Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision))
   2014/C 184/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Donnelly and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the Order of 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10 Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU (notified under No C(2010) 4894) of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to pay the costs of this appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-333/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen): Susanne Lewen v Lothar Denda (Equal pay for male and female workers — Entitlement to a Christmas bonus — Parental leave and maternity leave)

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 20/5
Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not preclude a Member
State, which grants tax relief to households with a single income and
to those with two incomes, the second of which is less than the                                     (Sixth Chamber)
index-linked sum of BEF 270 000, from refusing that benefit to
households in which one spouse is an official or other servant of the
European Communities where his salary exceeds that amount.                                        of 21 October 1999
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 in Case C-333/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen): Susanne Lewen v
                                                                                Lothar Denda (1)
                                                                           (Equal pay for male and female workers — Entitlement to a
                                                                             Christmas bonus — Parental leave and maternity leave)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2000/C 20/09)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 21 October 1999                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Disallowance of                                              in the European Court Reports)
                expenditure — 1992 and 1993)
                                                                           In Case C-333/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                          (2000/C 20/08)                                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                           Gelsenkirchen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Susanne Lewen
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and Lothar Denda — on the interpretation of Article 119 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
                                                                           replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Article 11(2)(b) of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
                                                                           safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers
In Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth
E. Röder and B. Kloke) v Commission of the European Com-                   individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
munities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) — application for the partial            Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1989 L 348, p. 1) and of Clause
annulment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 No-                       2(6) of the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June
vember 1996, amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance                  1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave con-
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of               cluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4)
the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the                   — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and
and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996                    R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
L 323, p. 26), inasmuch as it refused to charge to the EAGGF               eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the sum of DEM 19 591 000 — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it held that:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as President
of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                  1. A Christmas bonus of the kind at issue in the main proceedings
J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman, Principal Adminis-                  constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October                  Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
1999, in which it:                                                             by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), even if it is paid voluntarily by
                                                                               the employer and even if it is paid mainly or exclusively as an
1. Dismisses the action.                                                       incentive for future work or loyalty to the undertaking or both.
                                                                               However, it does not fall within the concept of payment within
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    the meaning of Article 11(2)(b) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC
                                                                               of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                      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).
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
2. Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer from excluding         ruling in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
    female workers on parenting leave entirely from the benefit of a      Angela Maria Sirdar and The Army Board, Secretary of State
    bonus paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas       for Defence — on the interpretation of the EC Treaty, in
    without taking account of the work done in the year in which the      particular Article 224 thereof (now Article 297 EC), and of
    bonus is paid or of the periods for the protection of mothers (in     Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    which they were prohibited from working) where that bonus is          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    awarded retroactively as pay for work performed in the course of      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    that year.                                                            training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L
                                                                          39, p. 40), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court,
    However, neither Article 119 of the Treaty nor Article 11(2) of       composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
    Directive 92/85 nor Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Council               de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
    Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agree-             Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
    ment on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    ETUC precludes a refusal to pay such a bonus to a woman on            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
    parenting leave where the award of that allowance is subject to       has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which it has
    the sole condition that the worker must be in active employment       ruled:
    when it is awarded.
                                                                          1. Decisions taken by Member States in regard to access to
                                                                              employment, vocational training and working conditions in the
3. Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85             armed forces for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness do
    and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Directive 96/34 do not preclude           not fall altogether outside the scope of Community law.
    an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus to a female
    worker who is on parenting leave, from taking periods of
    parenting leave into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.   2. The exclusion of women from service in special combat units such
                                                                              as the Royal Marines may be justified under Article 2(2) of
                                                                              Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    However, Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer, when            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
    granting a Christmas bonus, from taking periods for the                   women as regards access to employment, vocational training and
    protection of mothers (in which they were prohibited from                 promotion, and working conditions, by reason of the nature of
    working) into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.              the activities in question and the context in which they are carried
                                                                              out.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 October 1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in Case C-294/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 26 October 1999                                 the Finanzgericht Münster): Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG
                                                                                v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna(1)
in Case C-273/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds): Angela Maria                   (Freedom to provide services — Trade tax — Add-back to
Sirdar v The Army Board, Secretary of State for                           the taxable amount — Exemption inapplicable to the lessee
                             Defence (1)                                  where the proprietor of the goods leased is established in
                                                                           another Member State and is therefore not liable to the tax)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Refusal to employ
           a woman as a chef in the Royal Marines)                                                    (2000/C 20/11)
                          (2000/C 20/10)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Industrial                    In Case C-294/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom, for a preliminary              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht


title: Case F-4/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Britto Patricio Dias v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Posting — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Correspondence between grade and post — Rights of the defence — Reasons stated)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Britto Patricio Dias v Commission
   (Case F-4/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Posting - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Correspondence between grade and post - Rights of the defence - Reasons stated)
   2010/C 148/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jorge de Britto Patricio Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr de Britto Patricio Dias to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.03.2009, p. 54.


title: Case C-41/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Application of a reduced rate — Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption — Supply, importation and acquisition of horses)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-41/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of horses)
   2011/C 130/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and W. Roels, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, M. Noort, D.J.M. de Grave and J. Langer, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, Agents), French Republic (represented by: B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 12 of, in conjunction with Annex H to, Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Articles 96, 97, 98 and 99 of, in conjunction with Annex III to, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular, horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports, and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12, read in conjunction with Annex H, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, and under Articles 96 to 99(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case T-69/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Poland v Commission (Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/18/EC — National provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure — Commission decision rejecting those provisions — Not notified within the six-month period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 95(6) EC)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-69/08) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directive 2001/18/EC - National provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure - Commission decision rejecting those provisions - Not notified within the six-month period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 95(6) EC)
   2011/C 30/60
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: initially M. Dowgielewicz, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, B. Majczyna and M. Jarosz, and finally by M. Szpunar, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, C. Zadra and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, Agent); Hellenic Republic (represented by A. Samoni-Rantou and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents); and Republic of Austria (represented initially by E. Riedl, and subsequently by E. Riedl and C. Pesendorfer, and finally by E. Riedl, C. Pesendorfer, G. Hesse and M. Fruhmann, acting as Agents),

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/62/EC of 12 October 2007 relating to Articles 111 and 172 of the Polish Draft Act on Genetically Modified Organisms, notified by the Republic of Poland pursuant to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty as derogations from the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 2008 L 16, p. 17),

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2008/62/EC of 12 October 2007 relating to Articles 111 and 172 of the Polish Draft Act on Genetically Modified Organisms, notified by the Republic of Poland pursuant to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty as derogations from the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-257/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 28 May 2014  — C. van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 28 May 2014 — C. van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   (Case C-257/14)
   2014/C 303/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C. van der Lans

      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

      Questions referred

               1)

               How must the concept of ‘event’ in recital 14 of the preamble [to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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] be interpreted?

               2)

               Having regard to paragraph 22 of the Wallentin judgment, (2) extraordinary circumstances as referred to in the aforementioned recital 14 do not coincide with the occurrences listed as examples in the second sentence of recital 14, occurrences cited as events by the Court of Justice in paragraph 22. Is it correct that the events as referred to in the aforementioned paragraph 22 are not the same as the event in recital 14 of the preamble?

               3)

               What should be understood by the concept of extraordinary circumstances which, according to paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment, surround the event ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ as referred to in the aforesaid recital 14 if, in the light of paragraph 22, unexpected flight safety shortcomings cannot themselves constitute extraordinary circumstances but may only produce such circumstances?

               4)

               It is apparent from paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment that a technical problem can be considered to be covered by ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and is therefore an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the Wallentin judgment; the circumstances surrounding that event may nevertheless be regarded as extraordinary if they relate to an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activities of the air carrier and beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin, as provided in paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment; according to paragraph 24 thereof, the resolution of a technical problem which can be traced back to poor maintenance of an aircraft is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity; therefore, according to paragraph 25 of the Wallentin judgment, such technical problems cannot constitute extraordinary circumstances. It appears to follow from those paragraphs that a technical problem which is covered by ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ is simultaneously an event which may be surrounded by extraordinary circumstances and may itself constitute an extraordinary circumstance. How should paragraphs 22 to 25 of the Wallentin judgment be interpreted in order to resolve that apparent contradiction?

               5)

               The words: ‘inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity’ are consistently interpreted in the case-law of the lower courts as: ‘associated with the normal activities of the airline’ — which is moreover an interpretation which is compatible with the Netherlands word ‘inherent’ (not the authentic text of the judgment) — so that, for example, collisions with birds or ash clouds are also not regarded as events within the meaning of paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment. Other case-law emphasises the words: ‘and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin’, likewise in paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment. Must ‘inherent in’ be interpreted as meaning that only events which are within the actual control of the air carrier are covered by that concept?

               6)

               How should paragraph 26 of the Wallentin judgment be read, or rather, how should that paragraph be interpreted, in the light of the answer of the Court of Justice to questions 4 and 5?

               7)

                           (a)

                           If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings constitute extraordinary circumstances which may justify invoking Article 5(3) of the Regulation if they arise from an event which is not inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is beyond the actual control of the latter, does that then mean that a technical problem which arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control …) can or cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance — on the assumption that it could not be detected during the regular maintenance operations — because then no event as referred to in paragraph 26 can be identified and it is therefore also not possible to determine whether such an event is inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is thus beyond the control of the air carrier?

                           (b)

                           If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings are events as referred to in paragraph 22 and the technical problem arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control), is that technical problem inherent or not inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is it or is it not thus beyond the actual control of the airline within the meaning of the aforementioned paragraph 26?

                           (c)

                           If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings are events as referred to in paragraph 22 and the technical problem arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control), what circumstances should then surround that technical problem and when should those circumstances be regarded as extraordinary so that they may be relied upon for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the Regulation?

               8)

               An air carrier can only rely on extraordinary circumstances if it can prove that the cancellation/delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Is it correct to conclude that the taking of all reasonable measures refers to the avoidance of the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances and not to the taking of measures to keep the delay within the 3-hour limit referred to in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 in conjunction with paragraphs 57-61 of the Sturgeon judgment (Case C-402/07)? (3)

               9)

               In principle, there are two types of measures to limit delays caused by technical problems to a maximum of 3 hours, namely, on the one hand, holding stocks of spare components in various parts of the world, thus not only at the home base of the air carrier, and, on the other hand, the rebooking of the passengers of the delayed flight. In determining the stock levels which they hold and the places in the world where they do so, may the air carriers have regard to what is customary in the aviation world, including for carriers which are only partially covered by the operation of the Regulation?

               10)

               In answering the question of whether all reasonable measures were taken to limit the delay which occurred as a result of technical problems which have an effect on the flight safety shortcomings, must the court take account of circumstances which aggravate the consequences of a delay, such as the circumstance that the aircraft affected by the technical problems, before returning to its home base, must, as in the present case, call at a number of airports, which may result in an accumulation of time lost?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

      (2)  Judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771.

      (3)  Judgment in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, EU:C:2009:716.


title: Case T-183/11: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Expiry of the earlier national mark — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/18

         Order of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Jacinto (My Little Bear)
   (Case T-183/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Expiry of the earlier national mark - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 126/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2011 (Case R 494/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Jacinto, Lda, and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-202/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 13 February 2014  — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 13 February 2014 — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale
   (Case C-202/14)
   2014/C 202/16
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Adiamix

      Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is requested to rule on the validity of European Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the exemption scheme established by Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts concerning the takeover of firms in difficulty (1), with respect to classification of that scheme as an existing aid scheme.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).