title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-334/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets in cereals — Standing invitation to tender — Cereal products for export to ACP States — Event causing time to begin to run for production of proof of entry for consumption into the State of destination — Second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87)

text:
2.8.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 184/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       tion (EC) No 2955/94 of 5 December 1994, within 12 months
                                                                              following the date of acceptance of the export declaration, except in
                                                                              cases of force majeure or where the exporter, having acted with
                           (Third Chamber)                                    diligence in seeking to obtain that proof, is unable to submit it within
                                                                              that period and the competent authority has granted an extension of
                           of 26 June 2003                                    the deadline.
in Case C-334/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Glencore
Grain Rotterdam BV v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft
                          und Ernährung (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets in
cereals — Standing invitation to tender — Cereal products
for export to ACP States — Event causing time to begin to                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
run for production of proof of entry for consumption into the
State of destination — Second indent of the second subpar-                                                of 17 June 2003
agraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and
        Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87)
                                                                              in Case C-383/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Østre Landsret): De Danske Bilimportører v Skattemi-
                            (2003/C 184/19)                                                  nisteriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (1)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            (Free movement of goods — Charge on the registration of
                                                                              new motor vehicles — Internal taxation — Measure having
                                                                                an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
In Case C-334/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
court between Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV and Bundesanstalt                                          the European Court Reports)
für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, on the interpretation of the
second indent of the second paragraph of Article 8(2) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of 10 October                           In Case C-383/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
1995 on the issuing of standing invitations to tender for the                 EC by the Østre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
sale of common wheat of breadmaking quality held by the                       in the proceedings pending before that court between De
French and German intervention agencies for export to certain                 Danske Bilimportører and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skatte-
ACP countries in the 1995/96 marketing year (OJ 1995 L 242,                   styrelsen, on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC,
p. 3) and of Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common                             Chamber, acting for the President, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
detailed rules for the application of the system of export                    and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La
refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as                    Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2955/94 of                           and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
5 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 312, p. 5), the Court (Third                       General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judg-
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                     ment on 17 June 2003, in which it has ruled:
Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     1.    A charge on the registration of new motor vehicles established
26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                by a Member State which does not have any domestic produc-
                                                                                tion of vehicles, such as that laid down by the lov om
                                                                                registreringsafgift af motorkøretøjer (Law on registration duty
The second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of                     on motor vehicles), in the version resulting from Consolidating
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of 10 October 1995 on                         Law No 222 of 14 April 1999, constitutes internal taxation
the issuing of standing invitations to tender for the sale of common                whose compatibility with Community law must be examined in
wheat of breadmaking quality held by the French and German                          the light not of Article 28 EC, but of Article 90 EC.
intervention agencies for export to certain ACP countries in the
1995/96 marketing year must be interpreted as meaning that proof              2.    Article 90 EC must be interpreted as not precluding such a
of importation of the goods into the ACP State or States concerned,                 charge.
which is necessary for release of the security of ECU 40 per tonne,
must be supplied, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down                   (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
common detailed rules for the application of the system of export
refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regula-


title: Case C-16/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications, British Telecommunications plc (Approximation of laws — Telecommunications — Networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Designation of undertakings to provide universal service — Specific obligations imposed on the designated undertaking — Directory enquiry services and directories)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd v Office of Communications, British Telecommunications plc
   (Case C-16/10) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Telecommunications - Networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Designation of undertakings to provide universal service - Specific obligations imposed on the designated undertaking - Directory enquiry services and directories)
   2011/C 103/11
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Number Ltd, Conduit Enterprises Ltd

      Defendants: Office of Communications, British Telecommunications plc

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21), Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Designation of undertakings to provide universal service — Specific obligations which may be imposed on the designated undertaking

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) permits Member States, where they decide to designate one or more undertakings under that provision to guarantee the provision of universal service, or different elements of universal service, as identified in Articles 4 to 7 and 9(2) of that same directive, to impose on such undertakings only the specific obligations, provided for in the directive, which are associated with the provision of that service, or elements thereof, to end-users by the designated undertakings themselves.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Case C-147/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon): Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilectrismou (DEI) v. Evthimios Evrenopoulos (Social policy - Men and women - Equal treatment - Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive 79/7/EEC - Insurance scheme of a State electricity company - survivors' pensions - Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on European Union - Meaning of 'legal proceedings')

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 199/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       an extension of the period prescribed for lodging such
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                    an objection.
                        of 17 April 1997
                                                                      4. Article 119 of the Treaty requires that widowers
in Case C-147/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                       discriminated against in breach of that provision be
from the Dükitiko Efetio Athinon): Dimosia Epicheirisi                      awarded a pension or other survivor's benefit under
        Ilectrismou ( DEI ) v. Evthimios Evrenopoulos ( J )                 the same conditions as widows.
(Social policy — Men and women — Equal treatment —
                                                                      H OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive
79/7/EEC — Insurance scheme of a State electricity
company — survivors ' pensions — Protocol No 2 to the
Treaty on European Union — Meaning of 'legal
                           proceedings ')
                          ( 97/C 199/04 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                of 17 April 1997
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-274/95 , C-275/95 and C-276/95
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                   ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Bundesfinanzhof): Ludwig Wünsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Hamburg-Jonas (')
In Case C-147/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      (Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature —
of the EC Treaty from the Dükitiko Efetio Athinon
                                                                                Potato starch)
( Administrative Appeal Court, Athens ) ( Greece ), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                        ( 97/C 199/05 )
court between Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI ) and
Evthimios Evrenopoulos — on the interpretation of                                      (Language of the case: German)
Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the Protocol concerning
Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                             published in the European Court Reports)
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 )       In Joined Cases C-274/95 , C-275/95 and C-276/95
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                     reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Mancini , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.               by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary ruling in the
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                       proceedings pending before that court between Ludwig
Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                 Wünsche & Co. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                the interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff, as laid
judgment on 17 April 1997, in which it has ruled :                    down in Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3618/86 of
                                                                      24 November 1986 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331 /
1 . The benefits granted under a pension scheme such as               85 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 950/68 on the
     the insurance scheme of the Dimosia Epicheirisi                  Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 345 , 8 . 12 . 1996, p. 1 ),
     Ilectrismou, including survivors ' benefits, fall within         and of the combined nomenclature, as contained in
     the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty.                       Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on
                                                                      the     tariff  and  statistical   nomenclature   and   on   the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 256, 7. 9 . 1987, p. 1 )
2 . Where a survivor 's pension falls within the definition           — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: J. L.
     of pay for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty,            Murray, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
     Article 119 precludes the application of a provision of          ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,
     national law which makes the award of such a                     Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator for
     pension to a widower subject to special conditions               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997, in
     which are not applied to widows, and there is no rule            which it has ruled :
     of Community law which could justify the
     maintenance in force of such a provision.
                                                                      1 . The classification       of esterified potato starch under
                                                                            heading 11.08 A        IV of Council Regulation (EEC)
3 . On a proper construction of the Protocol concerning                     No 3618/86 of           24 November 1986 amending
     Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European                    Regulation (EEC)       No 3331 /85 amending Regulation
     Community, that Article may be relied upon in                          (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff
     proceedings initiated before 17 May 1990 in order to                   (and under subheading 1108 13 00 of the combined
     obtain benefits under an occupational social security                  nomenclature, as contained in Council Regulation
     scheme, even if the action was declared inadmissible                   (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
     on the ground that the applicant had not lodged a                      statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     prior objection, where the national court has granted                  Tariff), or under heading 39.06 B I of the Common


title: Case T-63/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — E-Control v ACER

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/49

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-63/16)
   (2016/C 156/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ACER of 16 December 2015, in Case A-001-2015; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements.
               Essential procedural requirements were disregarded in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, namely E-Control’s fundamental procedural right to challenge the legality of the Opinion of the ACER No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (1) and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto (the ‘Opinion’) and E-Control’s right to make its legal position heard.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law in holding that the Opinion does not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 (2).
               The Board of Appeal of ACER erred in law in holding that E-Control’s appeal against the Opinion was inadmissible because ACER’s Opinion did not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009, denying E-Control the right to appeal. The Opinion subject to the appeal constitutes a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 as it has direct legal effects on E-Control. Therefore, a right to appeal exists and the Board of Appeal would have had to consider the appeal by E-Control on its merits.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the absence of proper justification.
               The Board of Appeal of ACER failed to provide proper justification in the contested decision as its legal assessment is in principle limited to the finding that the Opinion constitutes an intermediate measure and a preparatory step for potential further actions of the Commission. The contested decision is not based on a consideration of E-Control’s legal arguments and does not contain a proper justification of (potentially opposing) views of the Board of Appeal of ACER.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the relevant legal principles.
               The Board of Appeal of ACER limited its legal assessment of E-Control’s appeal to the finding that ACER’s Opinion constitutes a provisional and intermediate measure serving solely as a preparatory step for potential future actions of the Commission. In the view of the Board of Appeal of ACER, the Opinion may therefore, as an intermediate measure, not form the subject-matter of an appeal. This legal view is not correct. The Opinion constitutes an independent, final and stand-alone act of an agency of the European Union and therefore, as of itself, forms the subject-matter of an action for annulment and consequently also for an appeal according to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009. Had the Board of Appeal applied the relevant legal principles correctly, it would have annulled the Opinion.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-464/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG (Brussels Convention — Article 13, first paragraph — Conditions for application — Definition of ‘consumer contract’ — Purchase of tiles by a farmer for roofing a farm building used partly for private and partly for business purposes)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-464/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Article 13, first paragraph - Conditions for application - Definition of ‘consumer contract’ - Purchase of tiles by a farmer for roofing a farm building used partly for private and partly for business purposes)
   (2005/C 57/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-464/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 8 November 2001, received at the Court on 4 December 2001, in the proceedings between Johann Gruber and Bay Wa AG – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   The rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as follows:

               —

               a person who concludes a contract for goods intended for purposes which are in part within and in part outside his trade or profession may not rely on the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of the Convention, unless the trade or professional purpose is so limited as to be negligible in the overall context of the supply, the fact that the private element is predominant being irrelevant in that respect;

               —

               it is for the court seised to decide whether the contract at issue was concluded in order to satisfy, to a non-negligible extent, needs of the business of the person concerned or whether, on the contrary, the trade or professional purpose was negligible;

               —

               to that end, that court must take account of all the relevant factual evidence objectively contained in the file. On the other hand, it must not take account of facts or circumstances of which the other party to the contract may have been aware when the contract was concluded, unless the person who claims the capacity of consumer behaved in such a way as to give the other party to the contract the legitimate impression that he was acting for the purposes of his business.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.


title: Case T-349/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/39

         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)
   (Case T-349/12)
   2012/C 287/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rudolf Leiner GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: W. Emberger, I. Rudnay and L. Emberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in Case R 482/2011-1 so as to allow the appeal or, alternatively, annul the decision;

               —

               order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Rudolf Leiner GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘REVARO’, for goods in Classes 11, 20 and 24

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration ‘RECARO’ for goods in Classes 10, 12, 14, 20, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-197/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado and Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado and Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español
   (Case C-197/10)
   2010/C 195/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya

      Defendants: Administración del Estado and Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

      Question referred

   Is Article 9(2)(b) of Royal Decree 1470/2007 of 2 November 2007, which makes the opportunity to acquire entitlement to single payments from the national reserve subject to the condition that young farmers should have set up their first business under a Rural Development Programme established under Council Regulation No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005, compatible with Article 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2) of 29 September 2003?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Case C-387/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Esaprojekt sp. z o.o. v Województwo Łódzkie
   (Case C-387/14)
   (2014/C 431/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Esaprojekt sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Województwo Łódzkie

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Article 51 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (‘Directive 2004/18/EC’), (1) in conjunction with the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators and the principle of transparency set out in Article 2 thereof, allow an economic operator, when clarifying or supplementing documents, to refer to the performance of contracts (that is to say, supplies provided) other than those which it referred to in the list of supplies attached to the tender, and in particular can it refer to the performance of contracts by another entity the use of whose resources it did not refer to in the tender?

               2)

               In the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-336/12 Manova [2013] ECR, according to which ‘the principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation — such as a copy of its published balance sheet — which can be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline, so long as it was not expressly laid down in the contract documents that, unless such documents were provided, the application would be rejected’, must Article 51 of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as meaning that the supplementing of documents is possible only when it involves documents which can be objectively shown to pre-date the deadline for submitting tenders or requests to participate in the procedure, or that the Court of Justice stated only one of the possibilities and the supplementing of documents is possible also in other cases, for example by attaching documents which did not pre-date the deadline but which objectively confirm fulfilment of a condition?

               3)

               If the answer to Question 2 is to the effect that the supplementing of documents other than as stated in the judgment in Case C-336/12 Manova is possible, is it possible to supplement by adding documents drawn up by the economic operator, subcontractors or other entities on whose capacities the economic operator relies, if they were not submitted together with the tender?

               4)

               Does Article 44 of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators set out in Article 2, allow reliance on the resources of another entity, as referred to in Article 48(3), by combining the knowledge and experience of two entities, which, individually, do not have the knowledge and experience required by the contracting authority, where that experience cannot be divided (that is to say, the condition for participation in the procedure must be fulfilled in its entirety by the economic operator) and performance of the contract cannot be divided (constitutes a single whole)?

               5)

               Does Article 44 of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2, allow reliance on the experience of a group of economic operators in such a way that an economic operator which performed a contract as one of a group of economic operators can rely on the performance by that group, regardless of what its participation in the performance of that contract was, or can it rely only on the experience it itself has actually acquired in performing the relevant part of the contract which was assigned to it within that group?

               6)

               Can Article 45(2)(g) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which states that any economic operator which is guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying or not supplying information can be excluded from the procedure, be interpreted as excluding from the procedure an economic operator which submitted incorrect information which affected, or could affect, the result of the procedure, in that the guilt for misrepresentation lies in the very supply to the contracting authority of the factually inaccurate information which affects the decision of the contracting authority concerning exclusion of the economic operator (and rejection of its tender), regardless of whether the economic operator did so knowingly and wilfully, or unknowingly, through recklessness, negligence or failure to exercise due diligence? It is possible to regard as ‘guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying the information required […] or not having supplied such information’ only an economic operator which has submitted incorrect (factually inaccurate) information, or also one which has submitted information which is correct, but has done so in such a way as to satisfy the contracting authority that it fulfils the requirements laid down by the contracting authority it, even though it does not?

               7)

               Does Article 44 of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 48(2)(a) thereof and the principle of equal treatment of economic operators in Article 2, allow reliance by an economic operator on experience in such a way that it relies jointly on two or more contractual agreements as a single public contract, despite the fact that the contracting authority did not refer to such a possibility in the contract notice or the tender specifications?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-136/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/27

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-136/14)
   2014/C 175/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Council Directives 91/271/EEC and 1999/74/EC, and Directives 2000/60/EC, 2006/7/EC, 2006/25/EC and 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1)

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament seeks annulment of Directive 2013/64/EU which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   According to the Parliament, the legal basis chosen by the Council is incorrect, on the ground that the measures provided for in the contested directive come under the responsibilities of the European Union pursuant to various common policies. Those measures should therefore have been adopted under sector-specific legal bases concerning the areas of environment, agriculture, social policy and public health, namely Articles 43(2), 114, 153(2), 168 and 192(1) TFEU and not on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   For the Parliament, measures which are not designed to deal with the economic or social constraints which an outermost region is facing by means of derogation from the full application of EU law in the region concerned cannot legitimately be based on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU. Accordingly, measures which merely seek to postpone the application of certain provisions of EU law to an outermost region do not fall within the scope of that Article.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 353, p. 8.


title: Case C-484/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 October 2010 — Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (ASCAFOR), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores del Acero para la Construcción (ASIDAC) v Administración del Estado, Calidad Siderúrgica SL, Colegio de Ingenieros Técnicos Industriales, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias de la Construcción (AIDICO) Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción, Asociación Nacional Española de Fabricantes de Hormigón Preparado (ANEFHOP), Ferrovial Agromán SA, Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (OFICEMEN), Asociación de Aceros Corrugados Reglamentarios y su Tecnología y Calidad (ACERTEQ)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 October 2010 — Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (ASCAFOR), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores del Acero para la Construcción (ASIDAC) v Administración del Estado, Calidad Siderúrgica SL, Colegio de Ingenieros Técnicos Industriales, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias de la Construcción (AIDICO) Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción, Asociación Nacional Española de Fabricantes de Hormigón Preparado (ANEFHOP), Ferrovial Agromán SA, Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (OFICEMEN), Asociación de Aceros Corrugados Reglamentarios y su Tecnología y Calidad (ACERTEQ)
   (Case C-484/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/54
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (ASCAFOR), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores del Acero para la Construcción (ASIDAC)

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Calidad Siderúrgica SL, Colegio de Ingenieros Técnicos Industriales, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias de la Construcción (AIDICO) Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción, Asociación Nacional Española de Fabricantes de Hormigón Preparado (ANEFHOP), Ferrovial Agromán SA, Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (OFICEMEN), Asociación de Aceros Corrugados Reglamentarios y su Tecnología y Calidad (ACERTEQ)

      Question referred

   Can the exhaustive provisions contained in Annex 19 to Royal Decree No 1247/08 of 18 July 2008, in conjunction with Article 81 thereof, relating to the granting of official recognition of labels of quality be considered to be excessive and disproportionate to the objective pursued and to involve an unjustified restriction which renders the recognition of the equivalence of certificates more difficult and to be an obstacle to or a restriction of the marketing of imported products contrary to Articles 28 and 30 EC?


title: Case C-80/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 February 2012 — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, AS Watson card Services (UK) Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 15 February 2012 — Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, AS Watson card Services (UK) Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-80/12)
   2012/C 184/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ldt, AS Watson card Services (UK) Ldt, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ldt, Superdrug Stores plc

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances where:

                           1.

                           The provisions of a Member State (such as the United Kingdom) provide for a company (‘a claimant company’) to claim group relief for the losses of a company that is owned by a consortium (‘a consortium company’) on the condition that a company that is a member of the same group of companies as the claimant company is also a member of the consortium (a ‘link company’), and

                           2.

                           The parent company of the group of companies (not itself being the claimant company, the consortium company or the link company) is not a national of the United Kingdom or any other Member State,

                     Do Arts. 49 and 54, TFEU preclude the requirement that the ‘link company’ be either resident in the United Kingdom or carrying on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment situated there?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is yes, is the United Kingdom required to provide a remedy to the claimant company (for example, by allowing that company to claim relief for the losses of the consortium company) in circumstances where:

                           1.

                           the ‘link company’ has exercised its freedom of establishment but the consortium company and the claimant companies have not exercised any of the freedoms protected by European Law,

                           2.

                           the link(s) between the surrendering company and the claimant company consists of companies not all of which are established in the EU/EEA.


title: Case C-468/07 P: Order of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Coats Holdings Ltd, J & P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fine — Claim seeking reduction of the fine set by the Court of First Instance)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/11

         Order of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Coats Holdings Ltd, J & P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-468/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fine - Claim seeking reduction of the fine set by the Court of First Instance)
   (2009/C 69/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Coats Holdings Ltd, J & P Coats Ltd (represented by: W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesovicz, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/05 Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd v Commission of the EC by which the Court partly annulled Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) concerning market sharing agreements in respect of haberdashery products and geographic market sharing agreements, and set the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants at EUR 20 million — Application for the fine to be reduced
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-54/13 P: Appeal brought on 31 January 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2012 in Case T-270/08 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/14

         Appeal brought on 31 January 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2012 in Case T-270/08 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-54/13 P)
   2013/C 86/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent, C. von Donat and J. Lipinsky, Rechtanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 November 2012 in Case T-270/08 Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain (intervener), French Republic (intervener), Kingdom of the Netherlands (intervener) v European Commission, concerning the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the financial contribution under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted for the Operational Programme falling under Objective 1 (1994-1999) for Berlin (East) in the Federal Republic of Germany, and annul the aforementioned decision of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.

                  First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/952 (2) and the principle of conferred powers (formerly Article 5 EC, now Article 5(2) EU, Article 7 TFEU), since, in the judgment under appeal, it made an error of law in assuming that a purely administrative error on the part of the national authorities constitutes an ‘irregularity’, which entitles the Commission to reduce financial assistance under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88.

                  Second ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 in conjunction with the principle of conferred powers (Article 5(2) EU, Article 7 TFEU), as it unlawfully authorised the Commission to make financial corrections by way of extrapolation (first part of the second ground of appeal). However, even if it could be inferred from Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 that the Commission is authorised to make reductions by way of extrapolation, the General Court wrongly approved the way in which that extrapolation was carried out in the present case. First, the Commission cannot systematically deem the error complained of to apply to the entire operational programme and extrapolate the resulting erroneous rate to the entire programme. Second, the Commission was not able to apply the samples which it used to reduce the financial contribution for the entire programme by means of extrapolation (second part of the second ground of appeal). Moreover, through the extrapolation of unrepresentative errors and flat-rate corrections, the Commission made disproportionate reductions in the financial contribution to the operational programme (third part of the second ground of appeal).

                  Third ground of appeal: The judgment under appeal also infringes Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 in conjunction with the principle of conferred powers, since the General Court appears to have wrongly assumed that the Commission was authorised to make a flat-rate correction (first part of the third ground of appeal). Even if the Commission had such authority to make a flat-rate correction, the General Court would still have been in error in accepting the Commission’s disproportionate flat-rate correction in the present case (second part of the third ground of appeal).

                  Fourth ground of appeal: Finally, the General Court infringed the duty to provide grounds for its decisions, laid down in Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in conjunction with Articles 36 and 53(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since it is not apparent from the grounds for the judgment under appeal that the General Court addressed the appellant’s claims relating to the inadmissibility of flat-rate financial corrections (first part of the second ground of appeal) or the reasons for rejecting those claims are not apparent.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-561/15: Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/63

         Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)
   (Case T-561/15)
   (2015/C 389/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR’ — Application for registration No 11 738 093

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2015 in Case R 1914/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as OHIM rejected Community trade mark application No 11 738 093 and, accordingly, allow the registration to proceed;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

   The applicant claims that:

               —

               the contested decision fails to correctly identify the average consumers of the actual goods or services;

               —

               the contested decision fails to carry out an adequate analysis of the likelihood of confusion.


               16.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 176/9

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Statens helsepersonellnemnd dated 25 January 2011 in the case of an appeal from A
   (Case E-1/11)
   2011/C 176/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 25 January 2011 from Statens helsepersonellnemnd (The Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of an appeal from A, on the following question:
   Does Directive 2005/36/EC or other EEA law allow the authorities of Member States to apply national rules providing for a right to deny an authorisation as a medical doctor or only to grant a limited authorisation as a medical doctor to applicants with insufficient professional qualifications, to a migrant applicant from another Member State who formally fulfils requirements under Directive 2005/36/EC for a right to mutual recognition of professional qualifications (authorisation as a medical doctor without limitations), when the professional experience of the applicant in Norway has unveiled insufficient professional qualifications?


title: Case C-519/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others
   (Case C-519/13)
   2013/C 377/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd

      Defendants: Dau Si Senh, Alpha Panareti Public Ltd, Susan Towson, Stewart Cresswell, Gillian Cresswell, Julie Gaskell, Peter Gaskell, Richard Wernham, Tracy Wernham, Joanne Zorani, Richard Simpson

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is service of the standard form pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) necessary in every case or can there be exceptions?

               2.

               If it is considered that service is necessary in every case, does the omission in the present case constitute a reason why service is invalid?

               3.

               If not, can it be effected, in keeping with the spirit of Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007, by service on the lawyer acting for the respondents appearing under protest, who is under an obligation vis-à-vis his clients to accept service, or must service be effected anew under the procedure provided for in Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).


title: Case C-596/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collective redundancies — Concept of ‘workers’ — Exclusion of ‘dirigenti’ — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) and (2) — Infringement)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-596/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘workers’ - Exclusion of ‘dirigenti’ - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and (2) - Infringement)
   2014/C 93/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Scope — Concept of workers — Inclusion of managers in that concept.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Italy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case C-15/06 P: Appeal brought on  11 January 2006  by the Regione Siciliana against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of  18 October 2005  in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/5

         Appeal brought on 11 January 2006 by the Regione Siciliana against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-15/06 P)
   (2006/C 74/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2006 by the Regione Siciliana, represented by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and consequently annul the Commission Decision C (2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid granted by the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF, as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less than ECU 15 million, in Italy (region: Sicily), and to the recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the Commission, and order the release of the balance;

               2.

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant claims that the contested judgment is flawed by reason of:

               1.

               infringement and erroneous application of Articles 18(1) and 32(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1787/84 (1) of 19 June 1984 on the European Regional Development Fund, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3641/85 (2) of 20 December 1985;

               2.

               infringement and erroneous application of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 (3) laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (4) as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (5) of 20 July 1984;

               3.

               inaccurate statement of reasons on a key issue of the dispute.

      (1)  No longer in force.

      (2)  No longer in force.

      (3)  No longer in force.

      (4)  No longer in force.

      (5)  OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 20.


title: Case C-630/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by HGA Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by HGA Srl and Others against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Case C-630/11 P)
   2012/C 118/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: HGA Srl and Others (represented by: G. Dore, F. Ciulli and A. Vinci, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08;

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants rely on six grounds of appeal.
   By their first ground, the appellants allege, in particular, breach of essential procedural requirements, breach and misapplication of Articles 4, 6, 7 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty and breach of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The Commission’s decision is unlawful in that it was adopted after the adjustment of the classification of the aid without any measure whatsoever providing for such an adjustment. Moreover, the decision to initiate the procedure following the adjustment was communicated three and a half years after the Commission had received all the documentation concerning the aid. A plea based on that ground was put forward in the proceedings at first instance but the General Court omitted to give any ruling in that regard.
   The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and breach and misapplication of Article 4, 7, 10 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The Commission’s decision was adopted in breach of the prescribed time limits.
   The third ground of appeal alleges breach of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 1, 7, 14 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. In support of this ground, the appellants submit that the Commission’s decision is unlawful because the aid was never altered by the Regione in relation to what was provided for by Legge Regionale No 9/1998.
   The fourth ground of appeal alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid, the principle of the incentive effect and the principle of the protection of competition and the consequent infringement of Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, breach and misapplication of Article 108 TFEU, defective reasoning and breach of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In the appellants’ view, the Commission’s decision is unlawful in that, in actual fact, the aid was characterised by the incentive effect, a fact which the Commission should have verified even if the applications for aid had been submitted after the work had started. The General Court failed to rule on that aspect of the case.
   The fifth ground of appeal concerns the breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations in another respect and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The judgment under appeal is based on the incorrect assumption that the Community court could not assess the legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries created by the national bodies.
   The final ground of appeal concerns breach of the principle of impartiality and the principle of the protection of competition. The General Court held, incorrectly, that the Commission’s conduct did not give rise to any unequal treatment in the contested decision, in so far as it declared that it was necessary to recover the aid granted to the appellants and, at the same time, declared that the incentive effect operated in relation to ten other undertakings which had started work after submitting an application, notwithstanding the fact that the application did not guarantee with any certainty that aid would be granted

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case T-342/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Petrolessence SA and Société de Gestion et de Restauration Routière S.A. ("Le Mirabellier") against Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 4/11
Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Petrolessence                       Pleas in law and main arguments
SA and Société de Gestion et de Restauration Routière
S.A. (‘Le Mirabellier’) against Commission of the European                On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
                           Communities                                    decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                          S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                          with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
                                                                          decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
                          (Case T-342/00)                                 number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
                                                                          70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                          specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
                           (2001/C 4/17)
                                                                          The present case has been brought against the decision of the
                                                                          Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                          rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                          of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
                    (Language of the case: French)                        2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
                                                                          the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                          prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2000 by Petrolessen-                  In support of its arguments, the applicant puts forward the
ce S.A. and Société de Gestion et de Restauration Routière S.A.           following pleas in law:
(‘Le Mirabellier’), established in Nancy (France), represented by         —     Breach of essential procedural requirements, within the
Frédéric Puel and Miguel Troncoso Ferrer, of the Brussels Bar.                  meaning of Article 230(2) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as
                                                                                the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the
                                                                                period prescribed to that end in point I.4 of the Annex to
                                                                                the abovementioned decision of 9 February 2000.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 4064/89 (1)
                                                                                in that various parts of the decision do not take into
—     annul decision SG(2000)D/106729 of 13 September                           account either the actual structure of the market con-
      2000 in so far as it states that the applicants have not                  cerned or of the applicants’ potential competitors, so that
      met the conditions set out in paragraph 1b of the                         the implementation of the abovementioned decision of
      undertakings of the parties in Case Comp/M.1628 —                         9 February does not succeed in developing effective
      Totalfina/Elf and inasmuch as it rejects their application                competition on the market for petrol stations on French
      to take six petrol service stations;                                      motorways.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
      pay all the costs.                                                      L 395, p. 1).


title: Case C-145/07: Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/33

         Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-145/07)
   (2007/C 95/64)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 (1) on occurrence reporting in civil aviation or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, and

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementing the Directive expired on 4 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 167, p. 23.


title: Case T-249/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — MHCS v OHIM — Ambra (DORATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark DORATO — Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks representing bottle neck labels — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — MHCS v OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)
   (Case T-249/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark DORATO - Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks representing bottle neck labels - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   2014/C 175/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MHCS (Épernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L.-É. Balleydier, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, N. Bambara and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ambra SA (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. KaczanParchimowicz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2013 (Case R 1877/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MHCS and Ambra SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders MHCS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Ambra SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20. 7. 2013.


title: Case T-17/10: Action brought on 19 January 2010 — Steinberg v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/36

         Action brought on 19 January 2010 — Steinberg v Commission
   (Case T-17/10)
   2010/C 80/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerald Steinberg (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: T. Asserson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               disclosure within 15 days of all documents specified in the application;

               —

               award for costs;

               —

               any other relief which the Court deems appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 15 May 2009, received by the applicant on 22 November 2009, partially rejecting his request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents related to funding decisions for grants to Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations for the past three years under the ‘Partnership for Peace’ (PfP) and ‘European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights’ (EIDHR) programmes.
   In support of its application the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   First, the applicant contends that, by not providing the access to the requested documents, the defendant acted in violation of Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
   Second, the applicant argues that by refusing full access to the requested documents the defendant acted in violation of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 as his request does not fall within the scope of any of the exceptions provided for in this article. Further, the applicant submits that, even if the exceptions would be applicable to his request, quod non, the right to access by the civil society organisations to the requested documents should be considered as constituting ‘overriding public interest in disclosure’.
   Third, the applicant claims that by taking almost six months to respond to his confirmatory application despite the fact that Regulation No 1049/2001 required providing a response within 15 working days from the request, the defendant acted in violation of Article 7 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
   Fourth, the applicant contends that the defendant failed to carry out an examination of the request ‘promptly’ and therefore acted in violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001.

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


title: Case T-97/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/17
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                        (2) the decision of the selection board for that compe-
                                                                                tition, as recorded and notified to the applicant by
The applicants oppose the appointment, with effect from                             the defendant’s letter of 17 October 2000 under
1 July 2001, of the new Secretary General of the Court of                           reference number 2556, to give the applicant a fail
Auditors.                                                                           mark in the abovementioned fresh oral test and not
                                                                                to include him on the list of successful candidates;
In support of their claim, they rely on the following pleas:
                                                                              (3) the defendant’s reply of 20 February 2001 rejecting
—     Legal errors in the vacancy notice for the post in that,                      the administrative complaints under reference num-
      whilst the vacancy notice indicated that the successful                       bers R/502/00 and R/627/00 submitted by the
      candidate would be paid on the basis of salary scale A1,                      applicant against the first two contested measures
      the Court subsequently envisaged proposing that the post                      referred to above;
      at issue should be an ‘unclassified’ post. Moreover, the
      condition regarding relevant experience and the condition
                                                                              (4) all other related enforceable measures of the
      concerning ability to assume responsibility for manage-
                                                                                defendant;
      ment of an organisation with numerous staff do not meet
      the requirements of precision and accuracy.
                                                                         —    order payment of compensation amounting to
—     Manifest error of assessment of criteria in that, in                    EUR 50 000 for the material and non-material harm
      particular, the Court used grade A6/A7 as the basis for                 caused to the applicant by the abovementioned measures;
      calculating the requisite 15 years’ experience.
—     Infringement of procedure in the selection of candidates           —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
      in that none of them was called to an interview even
      though such an interview was provided for in the vacancy
      notice.
                                                                         Grounds for annulment and main arguments
—     Manifest error of assessment in the choice of the success-
      ful candidate.
                                                                         The applicant’s allegations against the defendant are as follows:
                                                                         Claim for annulment
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against                   —    Infringement of Article 233 EC, independently and in
       the Commission of the European Communities                             conjunction with the infringement of the principle of
                                                                              equal treatment and of the rules governing the operation
                         (Case T-97/01)                                       of selection boards:
                        (2001/C 186/26)                                       (a)   the method chosen by the defendant for complying
                                                                                with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                23 February 2000 was inconsistent with Article 233
                                                                                EC (and with the abovementioned principle and
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                rules);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     (b) it would have been lawful to comply with the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                          judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
European Communities on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos,                               ary 2000 by including the applicant on the list of
assistant administrator at the Commission, represented by                           successful candidates without fresh tests:
Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer, Sagia Chambers, Likavit-
tou 5, Athens 106 72.
                                                                                (i)   the argument arising from the judgment of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000;
—     annul:                                                                        (ii) rebuttal of the defendant’s submissions that
      (1) the decision of the appointing authority of the                                 entry on the list of successful candidates with-
            defendant, as recorded and notified to the applicant                          out a fresh oral test is contrary to Community
            by letter of 30 June 2000 under reference num-                                law;
            ber 1847, to invite him to a fresh oral test in internal
            competition COM/A/17/96 following the annulling                         (iii) the applicant’s general performance in the
            judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-                          tests in competition COM/A/17/96 and the
            ary 2000 (Case T-95/98);                                                      principle of proportionality;
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
—     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment                    —     Order the defendant to pay the balance of pay corre-
                                                                                sponding to the difference between the remuneration of
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-                  a person in Grade A, Step 3, and that of a person in the
            tion board varied and it was unable to carry out a                  grade above, together with interest thereon at the rate of
            valid comparison of the candidates;                                 8 % per annum as from 1 March 2000;
      (b) infringement because of the time which had passed
            since the original test period of December 1997;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay damages, calculated pro-
      (c)   infringement because the applicant (and he alone)                   visionally on an ex aequo et bono basis, as EUR 1;
            was examined by all the regular and substitute
            members of the selection board;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
      (d) infringement regarding the ratio of members of
            the selection board appointed by the appointing
            authority to members appointed by the personnel
            committee;
—     Infringement of the rules governing the operation of
      selection boards                                                    Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-
            tion board varied;
      (b) infringement because the regular and substitute
            members participated on the selection board simul-            The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
            taneously;                                                    to classify him in Grade A 5, step 3. He contends that the
                                                                          appointing authority did not comply with Article 31(2) and
      (c)   infringement because the requirement for impar-               Article 32 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant,
            tiality was not observed.                                     the appointing authority took no account of his experience or
                                                                          his exceptional qualifications, nor of the specific requirements
                                                                          of the service, when deciding on his grade and the step.
Claim for compensation
The sum sought by the applicant in compensation amounts to
EUR 50 000 .
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of non-
                                                                          discrimination by the appointing authority. He was classified
                                                                          in Grade A 5, Step 3, despite his experience or his exceptional
                                                                          qualifications, yet other persons, without exceptional qualifi-
                                                                          cations, were classified in the same grade and step. Likewise,
                                                                          there was discrimination between the applicant and the
                                                                          other persons to whom the appointing authority applied
                                                                          Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations even though the profile
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v                        of such persons was less exceptional. According to the
          Commission of the European Communities                          applicant, the principle of non-discrimination is not upheld by
                                                                          Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
                                                                          alleges discrimination between persons who have acquired
                          (Case T-98/01)                                  experience within the institutions and thous who have acquired
                                                                          experience outside the Communities as far as deciding on a
                         (2001/C 186/27)                                  person’s grade and step is concerned.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the duty to have
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regard for the interests of its staff, infringement of the rules on
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 4 May              the free movement of persons and, finally, a breach of the
2001 by Filippos Pierros, residing in Brussels, represented by            obligation to state reasons.
the lawyers Georges Vandersanden and Laue Levi.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 June
      2000 classifying the applicant in Grade 5, Step 3, and, so
      far as may be necessary, annul the implied decision
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint;