title: Case C-525/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2007 by Philippe Combescot against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-249/04 Philippe Combescot v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/12

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2007 by Philippe Combescot against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-249/04 Philippe Combescot v Commission
   (Case C-525/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

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

               —

               declare, by varying the decision of the Court of First Instance delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-249/04, that the career development report (‘the CDR’) drawn up by Mr M, despite his being completely unsuitable to perform, as in fact he did, the role of hierarchical superior responsible for appraising Mr Combescot's professionalism, is unlawful; recognise that unsuitability arising from the serious and irremediable enmity between the applicant and his hierarchical superior, latterly implicitly recognised by Mr M himself; accordingly, recognise Mr Combescot's entitlement to compensation in respect of non-material damage, damage to physical and mental health and damage to his professional life and career, to be assessed in a sum not less than EUR 100 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The dispute relates to the preparation of the CDR for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, which was held to be lawful. The applicant challenges the conclusions reached by the Court of First Instance inasmuch as it regards the CDR as unlawful because it was prepared by an individual, Mr M, who was moved by a deep loathing of Mr Combescot, since the latter had reported very serious management irregularities committed at the Delegation in Guatemala by the same Mr M. Following those complaints, the institution sent an inspection to Guatemala and, subsequently, as a result of the complaint brought by Mr Combescot, OLAF decided on 20 September 2004 to open an enquiry, concluded by the final report of 30 May 2006 (‘the OLAF Report’), admitted as evidence in the present proceedings, together with the report drawn up by the inspection committee sent out in 2002. By the present appeal, counsel for Mr Combescot ask the Court to vary the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in so far as it excludes the unlawfulness of the CDR and, accordingly, rules out the applicant's entitlement to compensation in damages. By that appeal the applicant asks the Court, therefore, to find and declare that, as a result of the incomplete and thus erroneous and in any event unlawful preparation of the CDR for 2001-2002, Philippe Combescot has suffered very serious harm to his career and to his professional image and that, in any event, the assessment in the CDR, placed in a broader context of abuses of power and disparaging conduct of hierarchical superiors, has caused suffering and mental anguish which has in turn caused a severe state of depression, as substantiated in the case-file and, above all, verified by the institution's own experts. The applicant therefore asks the Court to make an overall assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding the matter, considering them all to be relevant in order to declare the unlawfulness of the CDR and therefore, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation in damages for the harm suffered.
   The applicant complains that the decision of the Court is contradictory, in that it states how the objectives of independence and integrity are to be regarded as binding in all situations in which an employee must express an opinion on a given matter and such an employee should not therefore find himself in a situation which, irrespective of the objectivity and fairness of the opinion, may appear to lack independence and objectivity in the eyes of third parties, yet none the less reaches conclusions, in the case of M, which are completely incomprehensible. The applicant also complains that the decision is contradictory, in so far as it recognises that the initiatives taken by Mr Combescot, once he had taken office as Advisor resident in Guatemala, had caused at the very least an unpleasant situation for Mr M, but that notwithstanding, takes the view that that situation was not such as to place Mr M in a situation in which it was completely incompatible for him to perform the task of assessor in accordance with the principles of impartiality and neutrality. It points out that the preparation of the CDR involves the making of a discretionary evaluation, so that any consideration as to the substance of the evaluation itself is of no conclusive value and is not suitable for confirming and/or disproving the basic fact which is that Mr M made the assessment in the CDR despite the obvious and serious enmity in his relationship with Mr Combescot. In that regard, it points out that the presence of a person as a co-appraisor who is completely unconnected with the relationship between Mr Combescot cannot be advanced as a solution. Accordingly, it criticises the content of the CDR point by point. Finally, the applicant applies for measures of enquiry.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 333/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
1 . dismisses the application in its entirety;                         of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Rue de la Porte
2 . orders the applicant to pay all the costs, including those         Neuve .
      of the proceedings for interim measures.
(') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities of 12 May 1995 , notified on 25 May
                                                                             1995 , discontinuing the EAGGF aid granted to it,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare unlawful the steps taken for
                      of 11 October 1995                                     recovery of the sum of Lit 314 741 984,
in Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          and seeks the reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings
                          (Inadmissibility)                            in accordance with the Rules of Procedure .
                            ( 95/C 333/27 )
                (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
In Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of            The applicant obtained from the Commission by a decision
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                of 28 November 1984 aid in the amount of Lit 494 946 104,
by Georges Sakellaropoulous, of the Athens Bar, with an                of which Lit 314 741 984 was paid on 24 July 1987. The aid
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   was granted for the purpose of completing an aquaculture
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the                         production unit in Orbetello (Tuscany, Italy ) on the basis of
European Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —               a project submitted by the applicant. Since there had arisen a
application for annulment of the decision of Commission                difficulty while the project was being carried out not in
appointing Mr Claude Probst to the post of Head of Unit                respect of the aquaculture production plant but rather for
VII . C. 93 with effect from 1 December 1993 — the Court of            the construction of a shed required for use in the business,
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of                         the applicant company asked for the project to be
D. P. M. Barrington, President, and K. Lenaerts and                    considered concluded when it was 70 % completed, waiving
P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                 payment of the remainder of the aid in respect of the Lit
11 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                    314 741 984 previously granted . The Italian Ministry for
follows :                                                              the Merchant Navy informed the applicant that such a
                                                                       request could not be accepted since the company had not
                                                                       obtained the certificate of fitness for use of the plant which
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      was defined as a 'conditio sine qua non for payment of the
                                                                       aid'. By letter of 14 April 1994 the Commission informed
2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   the applicant that, in the absence of such a certificate, the
                                                                       procedure for discontinuing the aid would be put into effect.
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The EAGGF aid granted to the applicant was dicontinued
                                                                       by way of the decision of the Commission of 12 May 1995 ,
                                                                       which is the subject-matter of these proceedings .
                                                                       The application is based on the following grounds :
Action brought on 31 July 1995 by Ittima Maremmana                     ( a ) Infringement of Community law
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-154/95 )
                                                                              — In the notice granting aid there is no mention of the
                            ( 95/C 333/28 )                                      relevant national authority having been designated
                                                                                ( Article 18 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 2908/83 ). The Ministry for the Merchant Navy
                                                                                ' appears' during the course of the procedure . That
                                                                                central national authority, whenever, however or
An action against the Commission of the European                                  by whomever it has been appointed, is nonetheless
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                incompetent to carry out the duties laid down in the
Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1995 by                          abovementioned regulation . Its 'insertion' into the
Ittima Maremmana, whose registered office is at Rome,                            procedure thus constitutes an infringement of that
represented by Sergio Barenghi and Alessandro Pallottino,                        regulation .


title: Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Fabrizio Gillet against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-215/96)

text:
22 . 3 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 94/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Fabrizio Gillet
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-2 15/96)
The applicant, a former Commission official, receives an                                       ( 97/C 94/38 )
invalidity pension on ground of serious illness. He is
resident in Italy but has elected to have his benefits paid in
the currency of the country where the institution in                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
question has its seat (third paragraph of Article 45 of
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations ). His pension is thus
paid to him in Belgian francs, subject to the weighting              An action against the Commission of the European
provided for Italy.                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
                                                                      1996 by Fabrizio Gillet, residing at Rome, a former
In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large                official of the Commission of the European Communities,
reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the               in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction              Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
in the Italy weighting of 81,7% , with retroactive effect as         Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
from 1 July 1995 , pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC,              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 of 18 December 1995                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials and
other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
weightings applied thereto ( ! ).
                                                                     — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
The applicant claims first of all that Articles 82, 63 , and             the contested act is based,
64 of the Staff Regulations and Article 45 of Annex VIII
thereto have been erroneously and unlawfully applied. In
his view, the present case concerns a pension expressed              — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
and paid in Belgian francs. The rates of exchange referred                1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
to in the second paragraph of Article 63 ( 2 ) were therefore            undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
not applicable. Accordingly, no weighting should have
been applied to the abovementioned rates of exchange .
The weighting for the country of residence of the recipient          — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
should therefore have been applied to the pension                        take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
expressed in Belgian francs as it was before the variation               payments and the recovery subsequently made,
to which the second paragraph of Article 63 refers was
corrected .
                                                                     — declare unlawful the inclusion, when calculating the
                                                                         amount of the alleged amount owed, of sums relating
                                                                         to the period from 19 to 31 December 1995 and,
Moreover, even if it were shown in the present case that                 accordingly, order the Commission to pay to the
the reduction of the Italian weighting in the period under               applicant, by way of compensation, the nominal
consideration had only been the result of the devaluation                amount of one Belgian franc in lire at the rate in force
of the lira, as the appointing authority asserts, the                    at the time,
applicant maintains that the weighting should then have
been 100% because the currency of remuneration was the
Belgian franc, and therefore conversion of the amount,               — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
expressed in Belgian francs from the beginning, was                      sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
inconceivable and thus any variation in the value of the
lira was irrelevant .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also points out that there was                         The applicant, a former Commission official, now receives
discrimination between those pensioners who elected                  an old-age pension. He is resident in Italy but has elected
payment of their benefits in the currency of their country           to have his benefits paid in the currency of the country
of origin and those who elected payment in the currency             where the institution in question has its seat (third
of the country where the institution in which they worked            paragraph of Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff
has its seat, to the detriment of the latter.                        Regulations ). His pension is thus paid to him in Belgian
                                                                     francs, subject to the weighting provided for Italy.
(') OJ No L 310, 22. 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                     In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large
                                                                     reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the
                                                                     preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 3 . 97
in the Italy weighting of 81,7% , with retroactive effect as          were unjustifiable . In particular these were that specific
from 1 July 1995, pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC,                purchases and work had already been completed before
Euratom, ECSC ) No 2963/95 of 18 December 1995                        the date when the Commission received the request for
adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials and              assistance, and the alleged forgery of the contract of
other servants of the European Communities and the                    purchase of a Tetra Pak packing machine with the purpose
weightings applied thereto ( 1 ).                                     of disguising the fact that the machine had already been
                                                                      installed in the establishment before the date on which the
The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those                   request for assistance was received .
relied on in Case T-2 12/96 Palermo v. Commission .
                                                                      The applicant alleges infringement of the second
0 ) OJ No L 310, 22 . 12 . 1995 , p. 1 .                              paragraph of Article 15 and Article 24 ( 2 ) of Council
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 (4 ), breach of the principles
                                                                      of legitimate expectations, proportionality and legality,
                                                                      breach of essential procedural requirements and misuse of
                                                                      powers . It claims in particular that all the contested
                                                                      invoices bear a date not earlier than six months before the
Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Massalombarda                   start of the measure and are, therefore, eligible for
Colombani SpA against the Commission of the European                  subsidies. Only five of the invoices bear a date earlier than
                           Communities                                six months, that is equivalent to 2,9% of the amount of
                        ( Case T-2 16/96 )                            the aid . None the less, those invoices should be considered
                                                                      valid since it is not the expenditure but the date stamp
                           ( 97/C 94/39 )                             which is six months earlier. The applicant considers that
                                                                      the purchase of the Tetra Pak machine falls within the
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      scope of 'Working Document' No VI/1216/b6.IT of the
                                                                      European Commission — Agriculture DG VI — F II 1 .
An action against the Commission of the European                      First of all, the machine was not acquired prior to the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     start of the period of the operation, so that paragraph Bl ,
Instance of the European Communities on 23 December                   point 5 , of the 'Working Document' is not applicable. It is
1996 by Massalombarda Colombani SpA, whose                            true that the machine was installed at the establishment
registered office is at Massa Lombarda (Italy ), represented          prior to the period of the operation, although not under
by Marina Averani and Andrea Pisaneschi, of the Siena                 the purchase contract but under a hire contract. Secondly,
Bar, and by Paolo De Caterini, of the Rome Bar, with an               the hirer acquired the asset in question after the date on
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  which financing was granted and before the subsequent
Charles Turk, 13B avenue Guillaume.                                   five years, as laid down in paragraph B.l , point 12 , of the
                                                                      'Working Document'.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The applicant points out that, in any event, the project in
— annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 2760 of 3 October                  this case has not been carried out in any way other than
     1996 ( ] ), pursuant to the second paragraph of                  that approved by the Commission. It therefore considers
    Article 173 of the EC Treaty and, accordingly, to                 that the principle of proportionality has been breached in
     render without effect all other measures based thereon,          that the whole of the assistance was withdrawn . The
    coordinated therewith or related thereto, as                      defendant should have dealt with partial irregularity by
     appropriate,                                                     adopting a decision reducing the aid . From that point of
                                                                      view, the adoption of a punitive penalty is contrary to
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                         Community law which describes reduction as a 'measure',
    proceedings.                                                      which may thus be assimilated to a claim for recovery of
                                                                      overpayment, rather than as a 'penalty', which may be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   assimilated to a deterrent penalty. The Commission would
                                                                      be misusing its powers if its intention is to impose a
The main purpose of this action is the annulment of the               penalty.
Commission's decision to withdraw the assistance granted
to the applicant company by way of Decision C(90 ) 950/               (') Not published .
356 of 29 June 1990 (2 ), adopted in the context of Project           ( 2 ) Not published .
90.41.IT.109.0 under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 355/               ( 3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on
77 (3 ) entitled ' Support to Horticulture and Fruitgrowing                 common measures to improve the conditions under which
in Massa Lombarda' ( Ravenna ), and demanding the                           agricultural products are processed and marketed ( OJ No L 51 ,
repayment thereof. That assistance had been requested in                    23 . 2 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                      ( 4 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
order to support the rationalization and technological                      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
updating of the fruit juice, semi-processed fruit and frozen                No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
products departments, the general services and testing                      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
laboratory of an establishment specializing in preserved                    operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
foods .                                                                     existing financial instruments ( OJ No L 374, 31 . 12 . 1988 ,
                                                                            p. 1 ).
In the contested decision, the Commission considered that
a number of facts which emerged during the inspection


title: Case T-707/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark DetergentOptimiser — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)
   (Case T-707/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark DetergentOptimiser - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 389/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2014 (case R 172/2014-1), relating to an application for the word mark DetergentOptimiser as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case C-207/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National law making the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which carry on regulated activities in the energy sector and of the assets necessary to carry on those activities subject to prior approval)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-207/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - National law making the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which carry on regulated activities in the energy sector and of the assets necessary to carry on those activities subject to prior approval)
   (2008/C 223/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National law making the acquisition of certain shareholdings in undertakings which carry on regulated activities in the energy sector subject to prior approval of a special commission
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting the first indent of the second paragraph of the single article of the fourteenth function of the National Energy Commission provided for in Supplementary Provision No 11, part 3, point 1 of Law 34/1998 of 7 October 1998 on the hydrocarbon sector (Ley 3471998, del sector de hidrocarburos), as amended by Royal Decree-Law 4/2006 of 24 February 2006 (Real Decreto-Ley 4/2006), in order to make the acquisition of certain shareholdings in undertakings which carry on certain regulated activities in the energy sector and the acquisition of the assets necessary to carry on such activities subject to the prior approval of the National Energy Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-492/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of a games board)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/48

         Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of a games board)
   (Case T-492/13)
   2013/C 325/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmidt Spiele GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by T. Sommer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 in Case R 1767/2012-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs;

               —

               Set a date for the oral procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the representation of a games board for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 10 592 103

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-193/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf) — KMB Europe BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — MP3 Media Player — Heading 8521 — Video recording or reproducing apparatus)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf) — KMB Europe BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-193/10) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - MP3 Media Player - Heading 8521 - Video recording or reproducing apparatus)
   2011/C 63/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Dusseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KMB Europe BV

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) — MP3 Media Player — Apparatus with a limited capacity to reproduce still images and videos whose principal function is the reproduction of sound — Classification under heading 8519 (‘Sound recording or sound reproducing apparatus’) or under heading 8521 (‘Video recording or reproducing apparatus’) of the Combined Nomenclature.

      Operative part of the order

   Heading 8521 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that MP3 media players, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to which the referring court finds that the principal function characterising all such apparatus is the recording and reproduction of sound, are excluded from that heading.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Case T-39/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Banca Intesa Banca Commerciale italiana v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Banca Intesa Banca Commerciale italiana v Commission
   (Case T-39/02) (1)

   (2007/C 82/110)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Fourth Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case F-66/07: Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Dubus and Leveque v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/54

         Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Dubus and Leveque v Commission
   (Case F-66/07)
   (2007/C 199/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Charles Dubus (Kraainem, Belgium) and Jean Leveque (Wattignies La Victoire, France) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions taken not to include the applicants' names in the list of those to be promoted in the 2006 promotion exercise, more particularly promoting Mr Dubus from C*2 to C*3 and Mr Leveque from B*7 to B*8, and, consequently, the decision not to promote them, as published in the Administrative Notice No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, as damages for non-pecuniary and pecuniary loss and for the prejudice to the applicants' respective careers, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants rely on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-58/07, notice of which is published in the present issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.


title: Case T-434/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines a.o./Council

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/19

         Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines a.o./Council
   (Case T-434/15)
   (2015/C 328/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran); Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran); Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran); Khazar Sea Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran); Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. (Tehran); Irinvestship Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and IRISL Europe GmbH (Hambourg, Germany) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Malek, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister).

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicants compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than USD 57 1 0 40  504, together with interest; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicants was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the Applicants and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicants for which they are entitled to compensation.


title: Case F-42/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/45

         Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-42/14)
   2014/C 212/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to impose on the applicant a penalty of relegation of three steps for an infringement of the rule prohibiting cumulative periods for national and statutory family allowances.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 24 June 2013 imposing on the applicant the penalty of relegation of three steps;

               —

               where necessary, annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 24 January 2014 and sent to the applicant on 27 January 2014, rejecting the latter’s complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-382/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments lodged on 28 September 2009 — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments lodged on 28 September 2009 — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-382/09)
   2009/C 297/26
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stils Met SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are TARIC codes 7312108219, 7312108419 and 7312108619 to be interpreted as meaning that, in 2004 and 2005, steel articles –ropes and cables not coated or only plated or coated with zinc– and, in particular, alloy steel not consigned from Moldova or Morocco, ought to have been classified under these codes, depending on their cross-sectional dimensions, irrespective of their chemical composition (excluding stainless steel)?

               2.

               Is Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community to be interpreted as precluding a penalty (fine) calculated on the amount of anti-dumping duties which is imposed on the basis of national legislation (Article 32(2) of the Law ‘Par nodokļiem un nodevām’) governing breaches of tax law?


title: Case T-96/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA (REACH — Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern — Actions for annulment — Actionable measure — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-96/10) (1)

   (REACH - Identification of anthracene oil (anthracene paste) as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 114/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV(Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s.(Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S(Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd(Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by Van Maldegem and Cana)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil (anthracene paste) (EC No 292-603-2) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S and Koppers UK Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case F-8/08: Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Renier v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/50

         Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Renier v Commission
   (Case F-8/08)
   (2008/C 171/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Colette Renier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the individual decision of 11 April 2007 limiting the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008 and an application for damages.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 11 April 2007 inasmuch as it limits the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-120/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — KE (*) v ERA (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Agency staff — Reduction of staff — ERA multiannual financial framework — Abolition of two posts from the establishment plan — Compliance with the essential formalities — Right to a fair hearing — Internal guidelines — Interests of the service)

text:
                  10.11.2014

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 395/66

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 10 September 2014 —  KE (*1) v ERA
         (Case F-120/13) (1)

         ((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Agency staff - Reduction of staff - ERA multiannual financial framework - Abolition of two posts from the establishment plan - Compliance with the essential formalities - Right to a fair hearing - Internal guidelines - Interests of the service))
         (2014/C 395/80)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: KE (*1) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Railway Agency (represented by: G. Stärkle, acting as Agent, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

            Re:

         Application to annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Tribunal:

                     1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                     2.

                     Orders the European Railway Agency to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by  KE (*1).

                     3.

                     Orders  KE (*1) to bear half of her own costs.

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

            (1)  OJ C 45, 15/02/2014, p. 47.


title: Case C-253/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Commission v Republic of Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Purchase of property for use as a new principal residence — Establishing the basis of assessment for the tax levied on the purchase of real property — Deduction of the value of the residence sold from the value of the residence purchased — Exclusion of that deduction if the property sold is not situated within the national territory)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Commission v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-253/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Purchase of property for use as a new principal residence - Establishing the basis of assessment for the tax levied on the purchase of real property - Deduction of the value of the residence sold from the value of the residence purchased - Exclusion of that deduction if the property sold is not situated within the national territory)
   2012/C 32/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich and M.Z. Fehér, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement — National legislation on the tax levied on the purchase of real property which, when the basis of assessment for that tax is established, makes the deduction of the value of the residence sold from the value of the residence purchased conditional upon the residence sold being located within the national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-394/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 July 2013 — Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v K. B.

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 July 2013 — Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v K. B.
   (Case C-394/13)
   2013/C 260/66
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí

      Other party to the proceedings: Mgr. K. B.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community be interpreted to mean that the Czech Republic is a state competent to provide a family benefit — the parental allowance — in circumstances such as those of the present case, i.e. where the applicant and her husband and child live in France, the husband works there, it is the place in which their interests are centred, and the applicant has drawn fully on the PAJE (prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant) family benefit in France?
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Should the transitional provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems be interpreted to mean that they require the Czech Republic to provide the family benefit after 30 April 2010 even though the competence of a state may be affected, as of 1 May 2010, by the new definition of residence under Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Article 22 et seq.)?
               If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

               3.

               Should Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems (in particular Article 87) be interpreted to mean that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the Czech Republic is the state competent to provide a family benefit as of 1 May 2010?

      (1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.


title: Case T-514/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/21

         Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)
   (Case T-514/11)
   2011/C 355/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)

      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 30 June 2011 in case R 1816/2010-1, and reject the opposition No B 001494205;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BETWIN’, among others for goods in classes 25, 26 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7281652

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6780951, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, among others for goods in classes 25 and 28; French trade mark registration No 23191414, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99822017, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks in dispute are confusingly similar.


title: Case F-84/06: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/28

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-84/06)
   (2007/C 235/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the claim of 20 June 2005 submitted by the applicant on 21 June 2005 to the office responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the statement of reimbursement of 18 July 2005;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the implied decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's claim of 23 December 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the additional sum needed to make up 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him and in respect of which he claimed reimbursement from the Joint Scheme on 20 June 2005, or by way of compensation for the damage arising as a result of the defendant's unlawful conduct in relation to the applicant, the difference between the sum already paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of medical expenses and the total cost of the medical expenses, namely the sum of EUR 89,56, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just in respect of either or both of those heads;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually from 21 June 2005 until actual payment, or at a rate to be compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal may consider just, on the sum of EUR 89,56 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just in order to make up 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his arguments, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

               (1)

               absolute failure to state grounds also by reason of a total failure to make preliminary inquiries inasmuch as it cannot be understood why the Community did not grant the applicant 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses, but only reimbursement in part. It is clear, moreover, that the administration failed properly to open a file relating to the applicant's claim of 20 June 2005, if necessary by taking into account all of the information provided by him;

               (2)

               infringement of the law on the basis that the applicant's medical condition was such as to give rise, within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to a right in his part to 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses;

               (3)

               breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration, given that it is apparent from the matter as a whole that the defendant failed to have due regard to the applicant's interests and did several acts and related deeds which, as a result of their grave unlawfulness and the considerable period of time during which they were committed, constituted a breach of that obligation and principle, the latter, moreover, being enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case C-358/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 August 2000 in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH against Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche Bibliothek

text:
C 355/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.12.2000
2.   Conversely, does a national provision which, in                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
     implementing a ‘harmonising’ directive, omits the above-          richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 August 2000
     mentioned requirements, conform with Community law?               in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH against
                                                                       Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche Bibliothek
                                                                                (Case C-358/00)
(1) OJ L 141 of 11.6.1993, p. 27.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/18)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                       Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) of 2 August
                                                                       2000, received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung
                                                                       GmbH against Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche
                                                                       Bibliothek on the following question concerning the interpret-
                                                                       ation of Articles 1 and 8 of Council Directive 97/52/EEC (1) of
                                                                       18 June 1992 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                       the award of public service contracts, amended by Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               97/52/EC (2) of 13 October 1997 (hereinafter ‘the Service
richt Bremen by order of 22 May 2000 in the case of Fikri              Directive’):
              Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                       Does the Service Directive also apply to a contract
                        (Case C-357/00)                                (a)   by which the contracting authority confers on the
                                                                             contractor the exclusive publishing rights (right of repro-
                                                                             duction and distribution) in a bibliography compiled by
                                                                             it — in this case the German National Bibliography,
                        (2000/C 355/17)
                                                                       (b) which requires the contractor to reproduce and market
                                                                             the bibliography on his own account and to pay the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       contracting authority a reasonable fee on the basis of the
European Communities by order of 22 May 2000 by the                          publishing proceeds for each copy sold, and
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Bremen, which was
received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000, for a             (c)   in which the contracting authority reserves rights of
preliminary ruling in the case of Fikri Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde               supervision and codetermination with regard to the
Bremen on the following questions:                                           reproduction and distribution of the bibliography?
1.   Is a family member within the meaning of Article 7, first         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-          (2) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
     Turkey Association Council on the development of the
     Association (Decision No 1/80) entitled to have access to
     the labour market even in the case where, after satisfying
     the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 7
     of Decision No 1/80, he has been given a custodial
     sentence of seven years and six months, of which he shall
     have to serve at least one half or two thirds?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the
                                                                       Bundesgerichtshof of 30 March 2000 in the case of Land
                                                                       Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag
2.   Does a right of access to the labour market also exist                                          GmbH
     under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80,
     notwithstanding a long-term custodial sentence, in the
     case where the member of the family of the Turkish                                         (Case C-360/00)
     worker is entitled only to respond to any offer of
     employment subject to the priority to be given to workers                                  (2000/C 355/19)
     from the Member States (Article 7, first paragraph, first
     indent)?                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal
                                                                       Court of Justice) by order of 30 March 2000, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 28 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of Land Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen-
                                                                       und Musikverlag GmbH on the following question:


title: Case C-170/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Common agricultural policy — Beef and veal — Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 — Article 3a — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Single payment — Determination of reference amount — Reductions and exclusions)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-170/08) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Beef and veal - Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 - Article 3a - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Single payment - Determination of reference amount - Reductions and exclusions)
   2009/C 180/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article3a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p.1) and of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Fixing of the reference amount — Reductions and exclusions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2004 of 29 October 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions and exclusions based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal are not to be taken into account in the calculation provided for in Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-791/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/52

         Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-791/16)
   (2017/C 014/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez-Bustamante and F. Löwhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul, in its entirety, the Commission decision of 4 July 2016 in Case SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the contested decision in the present case, the Commission considered that a transfer of land between Real Madrid and Madrid City Council constituted State aid, in so far as the land to which the transaction related had been overvalued by EUR 18,4 million.
   The contested decision arises from the non-compliance, by Madrid City Council, with the 1998 implementing agreement, under which it undertook to transfer to Real Madrid CF plot B-32 in Las Tablas. Madrid City Council and Real Madrid CF remedied that situation by the 2011 settlement agreement under which compensation was awarded to Real Madrid FC in the form of the transfer of the abovementioned land.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1), TFEU

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors when it concluded that the 2011 settlement agreement conferred an economic advantage on the applicant and thus constituted State aid in its favour. By the 2011 settlement agreement, Madrid City Council merely recognised its responsibility for the non-compliance with the 1998 implementing agreement. Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account, in applying the principle of the private market economy operator, of the fact that options other than the 2011 settlement agreement, such as defending a legal action, would have been much more onerous for the city council.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of article 107(1) TFEU and the general principle of sound administration.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has made serious errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on an expert opinion with no probative value and by rejecting the other valuations of plot B-32 included in the file without having sought the opinion of its own assessor or any other expert with the relevant qualifications.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU and the principle of sound administration when determining the amount of compensation awarded to Real Madrid FC under the 2011 settlement agreement.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has not assessed the value of the immovable property transferred to the applicant under the 2011 settlement agreement as compensation but has accepted, without any reasoning and without replying to the detailed arguments set out by the applicant on that point, the value which the Madrid City Council attributed to it, although the Commission simply rejected the other valuations (such as the valuation of plot B-32) carried out by the city council using the same method.


title: Case F-82/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Nolin v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Nolin v Commission
   (Case F-82/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/117
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips of 1 January 2010 issued within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-82/10 Nolin v Commission.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.2011, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2003 in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guidelines for the calculation of fines)

text:
C 7/30                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
1.    Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of                 (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Gar-
      16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                 cía-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi
      Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —               and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
      Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement).                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
                                                                             it:
2.    Annuls Article 6 of Decision 1999/243 in so far as it applies
      to mutual disclosure by the applicants of the availability and
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
      content of their individual service contracts.
3.    Annuls Article 7 of Decision 1999/243 to the extent required           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      by the annulment of Articles 5 and 6.                                        the Commission.
4.    Annuls Article 8 of Decision 1999/243.                                 3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.
5.    Dismisses the remainder of the applications.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
6.    Orders the applicants and the Commission each to bear their
      own costs.
7.    Orders the European Council of Transport Users ASBL to bear
      its own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 27.03.1999 and OJ C 86 of 13.03.1999.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 21 October 2003
                                                                             in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and
                                                                             Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81
                        of 16 October 2003
                                                                             EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at
in Case T-148/00: The Panhellenic Union of Cotton                            restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive
Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European                           bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and
                          Communities (1)                                    duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guide-
                                                                                lines for the calculation of fines)
(State aid — Compensatory levy — Method of financing aid
— Community aid scheme for cotton — Action for annul-                                                   (2004/C 7/54)
ment — Admissibility — Acts which may be challenged —
Commission’s refusal to continue infringement proceedings
           — Principle of independent legal remedies)                                            (Language of the case: English)
                            (2004/C 7/53)
                                                                             In Case T-368/00, General Motors Nederland BV, established
                    (Language of the case: English)                          in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), Opel Nederland BV, established in
                                                                             Sliedrecht, represented by D. Vandermeersch, R. Snelders and
                                                                             S. Allcock, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-148/00, The Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners                    W. Mölls and A. Whelan): Application for, as the principal
and Exporters, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented             claim, annulment of the Commission’s decision 2001/146/EC
by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert,                 of 20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                   Article 81 EC (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel) (OJ 2001 L 59,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou                       p. 1) or, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the fine
and D. Triantafyllou), supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents:               imposed on the applicants by that decision., the Court of First
I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou): Application for the partial annul-              Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
ment of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of 20 July 1999                      President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
on an aid scheme applied in Greece to cotton by the Greek                    has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which it has
Cotton Board (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 27), the Court of First Instance              ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/31
1.    The contested decision of the Commission 2001/146/EC of                   2.    Dismisses the rest of the action as unfounded.
      20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
      of the EC Treaty (COMP/36.653 — Opel) is annulled in so
                                                                                3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those of
      far as it establishes the existence of a restrictive supply measure
                                                                                the Commission.
      contrary to Article 81(1) EC.
2.    The amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 3
                                                                                (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
      of the contested decision is reduced to EUR 35 475 000.
3.    The application is dismissed as to the remainder.
4.    The applicants are ordered to bear four fifths of their own costs
      and four fifths of the Commission’s costs; the Commission is
      ordered to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the
      applicants’ costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                of 23 October 2003
                                                                                in Case T-255/01: Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
                                                                                Fixtures Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Yankon Group Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Anti-dumping — Determination of normal value — Mar-
                         of 16 October 2003                                     ket-economy treatment — Analogue country — Article 2(7)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
in Case T-47/01: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                                              (2004/C 7/56)
(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Refusal — Authorship rule                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                         — Misuse of powers)
                             (2004/C 7/55)
                                                                                In Case T-255/01, Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
                                                                                Fixtures Co. Ltd, established at Changzhou (China), Zhejiang
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                            Yankon Group Co. Ltd, formerly Zheijang Sunlight Group Co.
                                                                                Ltd, established at Shangyu (China), represented by P. Bentley
                                                                                QC, and F. Ragolle, lawyer, v Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Agents: S. Marquardt, and G. M. Berrisch), supported by
In Case T-47/01, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl, established in Padua                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
(Italy), represented by W. Viscardini, M. Paolin and S. Donà,                   schitz, T. Scharf and S. Meany): Application for annulment of
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001
P. Stancanelli, P. Aalto and P. Wölker): Application for                        imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in the                         tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated
letters of 31 July 2000 from the Directorate-General for                        electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the
Agriculture and 5 December 2000 from the Secretary-General                      People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), the Court
of the Commission, by which access to the documents sought                      of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
by the applicant in connection with the arrangements for                        composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
importing bananas was partly refused, the Court of First                        J.D. Cooke, J. Pirrung and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers,
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,                23 October 2003, in which it:
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                                1.    Dismisses the action.
1.    Dismisses the application for annulment of the decision
      contained in the letter from DG Agriculture of 31 July 2000               2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the
      as inadmissible.                                                                costs incurred by the Council.


title: Case C-187/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Nederland) lodged on 3 April 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Nederland) lodged on 3 April 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk
   (Case C-187/07)
   (2007/C 129/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Zutphen
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Dirk Endendijk
   Questions referred

               1.

               How is tethered, within the meaning of Directive 91/629/EEC (1), in conjunction with Decision 97/182/EC (2) to be interpreted?

               2.

               Is the material, the length or the purpose of the tethering of any significance in that respect?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 24 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 91/629/EEC (OJ 1997 L 76, p. 30).


title: Case C-17/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Wineke Neirinck against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/15

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Wineke Neirinck against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission
   (Case C-17/07 P)
   (2007/C 95/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Wineke Neirinck (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall, D. Martin, acting as Agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04;

               —

               accordingly, uphold the applicant's claims at first instance and, thus,

                           —

                           annul the decision of which the applicant became aware at the meeting of Unit OIB.1 (Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Brussels — implementation of building policy) of 4 March 2004 that another candidate had been selected for the post of lawyer in the building policy sector within the OIB to which the applicant had applied (decision to recruit Mr D. S. as an auxiliary member of staff and decision not to appoint the applicant as an auxiliary member of staff);

                           —

                           annul the decision of 9 March 2004 informing the applicant that her application had been rejected;

                           —

                           annul the subsequent decision of 27 April 2004 informing the applicant that she had not passed the oral test of the recruitment procedure for contractual agents and annul the decision of that date to recruit Mr D. S.;

                           —

                           in any event, award EUR 30 000 by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm suffered by the applicant, that amount being assessed on equitable principles on a provisional basis;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entire costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant raises six pleas in support of her appeal.
   By her first plea in law, she submits, first of all, that the Court of First Instance, by declaring the first head of claim for annulment inadmissible, disregarded the conditions of admissibility of an appeal based on Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and, in particular, the concept of a legal interest in bringing proceedings. The decision to recruit Mr D. S. as an auxiliary member of staff by 1 May 2004 in fact had the effect, first, of increasing the number of candidates for the selection procedure for contractual agents for the position occupied by the applicant, and, secondly, of making it impossible to give the applicant a contract as a temporary member of staff, which clearly highlighted the interest which she had in securing annulment of that decision.
   By her second plea, the applicant argues that the Court did not fulfil its general duty to state reasons by considering that the information contained in the decision of 27 April 2004 could be regarded as constituting a statement of reasons of some kind and that the supplementary information provided in the course of the proceedings compensated for the initial inadequacy of the statement of reasons. First, the decision of 27 April 2004 did not contain any reasons as to the particular situation of the applicant and did not set out any specific circumstances or facts known to the applicant such as to enable her to ascertain the scope of the decision. Secondly, such a lack of reasons cannot be covered by explanations provided by the competent authority after the appeal was lodged on pain of infringing the rights of the defence and the principal of equal treatment of the parties before the Community judicature.
   By her third plea, the applicant asserts that the Court distorted the evidence by concluding, in paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, that the selection procedure was not based on a comparative examination of the candidates' merits. That conclusion is in fact contradicted both by the defendant's written pleadings and by other passages in the judgment under appeal in which the Court itself makes explicit reference to a comparative examination — within that recruitment procedure — of the candidates' merits.
   By her fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Court also distorted the evidence and disregarded the concept of abuse of process by holding that the evidence put forward by the applicant did not enable an abuse of process or infringement of the interest of the service to be established. All the factors put forward by the applicant constitute, on the contrary, both consistent and relevant evidence of an abuse of process since, although two distinct sets of proceedings were brought by the defendant, the duties which they sought to appeal were the same, which reflects the desire of the defendant to give advantage to Mr D. S. in taking up the duties of the applicant after 30 April 2004.
   By her fifth plea, the applicant argues that the Court disregarded the concepts of the interest of the service and manifest error of assessment by holding that the selection procedure for contractual agents had not been infringed and by refusing, as a result, to review the assessment made by the selection committee of the applicant's oral examination.
   By her six plea, the applicant alleges, finally, breach by the Court of the principles of due care and sound administration.


title: Case T-211/05: Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/43

         Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-211/05)
   (2005/C 182/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Commission decision C (2005) 591 final;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action concerns Commission decision C (2005) 591 final which declared incompatible with the common market, as State aid contrary to Article 87 EC, two Italian tax measures granted to companies obtaining listing on regulated markets in the period stated in the measures themselves. Those measures reduce the rate of income tax for three years and exclude from taxable income the costs of the listing borne by the company.
   According to the Commission, the measures in question are selective since they favour only those companies obtaining listing in the period stated in the Italian rules, excluding those already listed and those which might be listed in different periods; the measures cannot therefore be regarded as compatible since they do not come within any of the cases laid down in Article 87(2) and (3) EC.
   The Italian Government criticises the decision, first, from the procedural point of view, since the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC without discussing the measures with the Member State concerned beforehand.
   Secondly, the applicant notes that the Commission did not submit any comments regarding a previous measure adopted by Italy in 1997, which was essentially the same.
   Thirdly, the applicant denies that the measures are selective. In fact they are directed at a potentially indefinite number of recipients. On the other hand, the measures are consistent with the tax system as a whole, since they take account of the fact that, in order to be listed, a newly quoted company must bear very heavy charges which place it in a situation of reduced earning capacity compared both with unquoted companies and those which have been quoted for some time and have been able to write off those costs. The limited time period is the result of budgetary constraints and the experimental nature of the measure. That factor cannot, in itself, render selective a measure which is inherently not so.
   Fourthly, the applicant denies that the Commission has demonstrated that the measure is likely to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
   Fifthly and finally, the applicant argues that if the measure is defined as aid, it is compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c). It is aid for investments rather than for operations, and is consistent with the specific economic objective of promoting the listing of companies on the stock exchange which is beneficial for efficiency, transparency and the competitiveness of the system.