title: Case C-112/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 January 1999 in the case of Toshiba Europe GmbH against Katun Germany GmbH

text:
C 188/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            3.7.1999
5. The solution opted for by the contested decision, based on             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
     entirely irrelevant criteria, breaches the principles of social      istratif de Pau (First Chamber) by judgment of that
     cohesion and of solidarity among the Member States. It               court of 23 March 1999 in the case of Association
     further breaches the principle of non-discrimination, given          basco-béarnaise des opticiens indépendants against Préfet
     that the reduction of the aid already granted to Italy was           des Pyrénées-Atlantiques in the presence of Mutualité
     greater than that applied to any other Member State.                 ‘Adour Mutualité’ and Mutualité Française Union des
                                                                                Pyrénées-Atlantiques
6. The applicant Government further submits that the Com-
     mission’s conduct is contradictory and is ultra vires.                                          (Case C-109/99)
     Moreover, the contested decision allegedly infringes
     Article 2 of Regulation No 1866/90, (4) as amended by
     Article 1 of Regulation No 2745/94. (5)                                                         (1999/C 188/18)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) of 19 December 1988 (OJ 1988 L 374,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-
    p. 1).                                                                tratif de Pau (Administrative Court, Pau) of 23 March 1999,
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) of 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20).      received at the Court Registry on 29 March 1999, for a
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) of 24 June 1993 (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) of 2 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 170, p. 36).
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Association basco-béarnaise
(5) Council Regulation (EEC) of 10 November 1994 (OJ 1994 L 290,          des opticiens indépendants against Préfet des Pyrénées-
    p. 4).                                                                Atlantiques in the presence of Mutualité ‘Adour Mutualité’
                                                                          and Mutualité Française Union des Pyrénées-Atlantiques. The
                                                                          Tribunal Administratif de Pau (First Chamber) requests a ruling
                                                                          from the Court of Justice of the following two questions:
                                                                          (1) Must Article 8(1)(b) of Council Directive 73/239/EEC (1)
                                                                               be interpreted as precluding the provisions of
                                                                               Articles L 123-1 and L 123-2 of the French Mutuality
                                                                               Code, which allow mutual benefit societies whose sole
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                           business is that of insurance to create between them
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,                          mutual benefit bodies which have legal personality and
Divisional Court, by order of that court of 2 September                        legal autonomy and engage in commercial business in the
1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and                              optical sector?
        Excise against Cantor Fitzgerald International
                                                                          (2) If the provisions of the directive are incompatible with
                                                                               French law, is the prohibition of commercial business
                          (Case C-108/99)                                      imposed on the mutual benefit body set up by mutual
                                                                               benefit societies whose sole business is that of insurance
                         (1999/C 188/17)                                       general and absolute, or is it open to the competent
                                                                               authorities of the Member State to define the conditions
                                                                               under which and the spheres in which a commercial
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         business may be pursued?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional
Court of 2 September 1998, which was received at the Court                (1) Of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
Registry on 30 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                    administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of
case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Cantor                    the business of direct insurance other than life insurance (OJ 1973
Fitzgerald International, on the following question:                          L 228 p. 3).
Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92 (Lubbock
Fine & Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners); (1) does
Article 13B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (2) exempt from VAT
a supply made by a person (‘the person’) who does not have
any interest in immovable property, where the person agrees
to accept an assignment of a lease of that immovable property
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
from a lessee, and the lessee pays that person a sum of money
                                                                          Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 January 1999 in
in return for that person taking the assignment of the lease in
                                                                          the case of Toshiba Europe GmbH against Katun Germany
that immovable property?
                                                                                GmbH
(1) ECR 1993 p. I-6665.                                                                              (Case C-112/99)
(2) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                                       (1999/C 188/19)
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Landgericht Düsseldorf
                                                                          (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf), Fourth Civil Chamber, of
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 188/9
19 January 1999 received at the Court Registry on 1 April                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
1999 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Toshiba Europe               ichtshof, Vienna, Austria, by order of that court of
GmbH against Katun Germany GmbH on the following                          17 March 1999 in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as
question:                                                                 insolvency administrator of the assets of the company
                                                                          P.P. Handels GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandes-
                                                                             direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
1. Is an advertisement by a supplier of replacement parts and
    user materials for an appliance manufacturer’s product to                                      (Case C-113/99)
    be regarded as comparative advertising within the meaning
    of Article 2(2a) of the directive if the advertisement states                                  (1999/C 188/20)
    the appliance manufacturer’s product numbers (OEM
    numbers) for the relevant original replacement parts                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and consumables for reference purposes to identify the                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
    supplier’s products?                                                  of (Administrative Court), Vienna, Austria, of 17 March 1999,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as insolvency
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    administrator of the assets of the company P.P. Handels
                                                                          GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
                                                                          Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following question:
    (a) Does displaying the appliance manufacturer’s product              Does Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
        numbers (OEM numbers) alongside the supplier’s own                1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1)
        order numbers amount to a lawful comparison of the                preclude the levying for 1996 of the tax provided for
        goods under Article 3a(l)(c) of the directive, and in             by Paragraph 24(4) of the 1988 Körperschaftsteuergesetz
        particular a comparison of the prices?                            (Corporation Tax law) as amended by Federal law BGBl
                                                                          (Bundesgesetzblatt, Federal Law Gazette) No 680/1994?
    (b) Are the product numbers (OEM numbers) ‘dis-                       (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
        tinguishing marks of a competitor’ within the meaning
        of Article3a(l)(g)?
3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                          trative d’Appel (Administrative Appeal Court), Nancy
                                                                          (First Chamber), by judgment of that court of 25 March
    (a) What are the criteria to be used when assessing                   1999 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against Office
        whether an advertisement within the meaning of                         National Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.)
        Article 2(2a) takes unfair advantage of the reputation
        of a distinguishing mark of a competitor within the                                        (Case C-114/99)
        meaning of Article 3a(l)(g)?
                                                                                (1999/C 188/21)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    (b) Is the fact that the appliance manufacturer’s product             European Communities by judgment of the Cour Administrat-
        numbers (OEM numbers) appear alongside the sup-                   ive d’Appel, Nancy (First Chamber) of 25 March 1999, received
        plier’s own order numbers sufficient to justify an                at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a preliminary
        allegation that unfair advantage is being taken of the            ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA v Office National
        reputation of the distinguishing mark of a competitor             Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.) on the following
        under Article 3a(1)(g), if the third party competitor             question:
        could instead in each case indicate the product for
        which the replacement part or consumable is suitable?             Did the provisions in force on 1 March 1990 and, in particular,
                                                                          Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
                                                                          ember 1987 (1), in so far as it provides that the export refund
                                                                          is to be paid only if ‘the product has been actually placed on
    (c) When assessing unfairness, is it relevant whether a               the market in the non-member country of import in the
        reference (solely) to the product for which the consum-           unaltered state’, permit the body responsible for supervision
        able or replacement part is suitable — in lieu of a               (in this instance, the O.N.I.C.) to challenge the supplier’s
        reference to the product number (OEM number) — is                 entitlement to refunds on the sole ground that the goods
        likely to make it difficult to sell the supplier’s products,      delivered had been used by its foreign customer in the
        particularly because customers generally take their               preparation of another product, which was itself liable to be
        bearings from the appliance manufacturer’s product                re-exported to other Member States of the European Economic
        numbers (OEM numbers)?                                            Community?
                                                                          (1) Laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of
                                                                              export refunds on agricultural products.


title: Case T-224/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Melitta France v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/52

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Melitta France v Commission
   (Case T-224/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Melitta France (Chezy-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: H. Weil, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Melitta France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-299/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014  — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna Garcia-Nieto and Others

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014 — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna Garcia-Nieto and Others
   (Case C-299/14)
   2014/C 315/61
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen

      Defendants: Jovanna Garcia-Nieto, Joel Pena Cuevas, Jovanlis Pena Garcia, Joel Luis Pena Cruz

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) — with the exception of the clause in Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence — also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 70(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) which do not under any circumstances allow access to those benefits for the first three months of residence where European Union citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany are neither employed or self-employed persons nor entitled to exercise freedom of movement under Paragraph 2(3) of the Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU (Law on Freedom of Movement for EU Citizens, ‘the FreizügG/EU’) and, if so, to what extent may that principle be limited?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: do other principles of equal treatment under primary law — in particular Article 45(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU — preclude a national provision which does not under any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit which is intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market in their first three months of residence to European Union citizens who are neither employed or self-employed persons nor entitled to exercise freedom of movement under Paragraph 2(3) of the FreizügG/EU, but who can demonstrate a genuine link to the host State and, in particular, to the labour market of that host State?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-146/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 15 — Detention — Extension of detention — Obligations of the administrative or judicial authority — Review by a judicial authority — Third-country national without identity documents — Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision — Refusal of the embassy of the third country concerned to issue an identity document enabling the third-country national to be returned — Risk of absconding — Reasonable prospect of removal — Lack of cooperation — Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi
   (Case C-146/14 PPU) (1)

   ((Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 15 - Detention - Extension of detention - Obligations of the administrative or judicial authority - Review by a judicial authority - Third-country national without identity documents - Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision - Refusal of the embassy of the third country concerned to issue an identity document enabling the third-country national to be returned - Risk of absconding - Reasonable prospect of removal - Lack of cooperation - Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned))
   2014/C 253/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Party to the main proceedings

   Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad –Interpretation of Article 15(1)(a) and (b), (3), (4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Removal of an illegally staying third-country national — Detention — Extension of detention — Whether permissible to exceed the maximum length of detention on the ground that a person has no identity documents — Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision — Reasonable prospect of removal — Refusal of the Embassy of the country of origin of the person concerned to issue the document necessary for the return journey — Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that any decision adopted by a competent authority, on expiry of the maximum period allowed for the initial detention of a third-country national, on the further course to take concerning the detention must be in the form of a written measure that includes the reasons in fact and in law for that decision;

               2.

               Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘supervision’ that has to be undertaken by a judicial authority dealing with an application for extension of the detention of a third-country national must permit that authority to decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the merits of whether the detention of the third-country national concerned should be extended, whether detention may be replaced with a less coercive measure or whether the person concerned should be released, that authority thus having power to take into account the facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority which has brought the matter before it, as well as any facts, evidence and observations which may be submitted to the judicial authority in the course of the proceedings;

               3.

               Article 15(1) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an initial six-month period of detention may be extended solely because the third-country national concerned has no identity documents. It is for the referring court alone to undertake an individual assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in question in order to determine whether a less coercive measure may be applied effectively to that third-country national or whether there is a risk of him absconding;

               4.

               Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who, in circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, has not obtained an identity document which would have made it possible for him to be removed from the Member State concerned may be regarded as having demonstrated a ‘lack of cooperation’ within the meaning of that provision only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court;

               5.

               Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot be obliged to issue an autonomous residence permit, or other authorisation conferring a right to stay, to a third-country national who has no identity documents and has not obtained such documentation from his country of origin, after a national court has released the person concerned on the ground that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of removal within the meaning of Article 15(4) of that directive. However, that Member State must, in such a case, provide the third-country national with written confirmation of his situation.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-461/06P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI). against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/45

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI). against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission
   (Case C-461/06P)
   (2006/C 326/91)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias (AEPI) AE (represented by: Theodoros K. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               hold the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the contested order No 303852 of 5 September 2006 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-242/05 in its entirety;

               —

               hear and determine our action of 4 June 2005 (pursuant to Article 230 of the EU Treaty) before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities itself, or send it back to the Court which issued the decision under appeal in order for it to be held admissible on the grounds specified.

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The grounds of the appeal are:

               (a)

               The decision under appeal dismissed the application and accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities without taking into account the individual right to legal protection which arises in every case in which a citizen brings a case before a court; his case must be judged in its entirety and to its full extent and the decision handed down must contain sufficient and lawful reasons.

               (b)

               Although it is accepted that in matters of infringement of the competition rules the Commission of the European Communities is recognized as having discretion as to the action it will take, nevertheless the decision under appeal did not examine whether the Commission remained within the permissible limits of its discretion or exceeded those limits, given the fact that in any event no administrative service is allowed to act ultra vires.

               (c)

               It was wholly impermissible for the decision under appeal to accept that the Commission of the European Communities may act without any supervision in the area of infringement of the principles of competition and, if it is called to account for its actions, is able to avoid doing so by simply raising a plea of inadmissibility.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 August 2014 in Case E-25/13 — Gunnar V. Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf. (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a request for an Advisory Opinion — Indexation of mortgage loans — Directive 87/102/EEC — Directive 93/13/EEC — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

text:
               19.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/31

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 August 2014
   in Case E-25/13
   Gunnar V. Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf.
   (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a request for an Advisory Opinion — Indexation of mortgage loans — Directive 87/102/EEC — Directive 93/13/EEC — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)
   (2015/C 92/05)
   In Case E-25/13, Gunnar V. Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Directive 93/13/EEC does not generally prohibit contractual terms on the indexation of mortgage loans in contracts between a supplier and a consumer. It is for the referring court to assess whether the term at issue is unfair. The assessment must take into account the Court’s interpretation of the concept of ‘unfair term’.

               2.

               Directive 93/13/EEC does not limit the discretion of an EEA State to determine, whether through legislation or by means of administrative regulation, the factors that may cause changes in a pre-determined index, such as the Icelandic consumer price index, as well as the methods for measuring those changes, provided they are explicitly described in the contract.

               3.

               It is for the competent national court to establish whether a particular contract term has been negotiated individually within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13/EEC.

               4.

               It is for the competent national court to establish whether a contract term relating to the indexation of repayment instalments of a loan to finance real estate purchases must be regarded as having been explicitly and comprehensibly described to the consumer. Such an assessment must take into account the precise wording of the relevant contract terms and all other relevant circumstances, including the circumstances set out in points (a) and (b) of the third question posed by the national court, as well as the national legislation on price indexation.

               5.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court considers that a given term is unfair within the meaning of the Directive, that court must ensure that such a clause is not binding on the consumer provided that the contract is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term, in so far as, in accordance with the rules of domestic law, such continuity of the contract is legally possible.


title: Case C-310/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania)) — Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești v Ștefan Agafiței and Others (Salary rights of judges — Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work — Conditions for compensation for the harm suffered — Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC — Inapplicability — Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania)) — Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești v Ștefan Agafiței and Others
   (Case C-310/10) (1)

   (Salary rights of judges - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - Conditions for compensation for the harm suffered - Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC - Inapplicability - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)
   2011/C 269/27
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministerul Justiției și Libertăților Cetățenești

      Defendants: Ștefan Agafiței, Raluca Apetroaei, Marcel Bărbieru, Sorin Budeanu, Luminița Chiagă, Mihaela Crăciun, Sorin-Vasile Curpăn, Mihaela Dabija, Mia-Cristina Damian, Sorina Danalache, Oana-Alina Dogaru, Geanina Dorneanu, Adina-Cătălina Galavan, Gabriel Grancea, Mădălina Radu (Hobjilă), Nicolae Cătălin Iacobuț, Roxana Lăcătușu, Sergiu Lupașcu, Smaranda Maftei, Silvia Mărmureanu, Maria Oborocianu, Simona Panfil, Oana-Georgeta Pânzaru, Laurențiu Păduraru, Elena Pîrjol-Năstase, Ioana Pocovnicu, Alina Pușcașu, Cezar Ștefănescu, Roxana Ștefănescu, Ciprian Țimiraș, Cristina Vintilă

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) — Interpretation of Article 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for a difference in treatment as regards the salary rights of judges and public prosecutors, justified in terms of the specialised nature of the work of the public prosecutors attached to the D.N.A. (National Anti-Corruption Directorate) and the D.I.I.C.O.T. (Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism) — Possible discrimination, in the absence of objective criteria linked to a specific requirement of higher qualifications — Provisions of national law transposing a directive declared unconstitutional in so far as they enable the national courts to annul legislative acts regarded as discriminatory and, by way of judicial remedy, to grant salary rights for which no provision has been made by statute

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-255/04) (1)

   (Admissibility - Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings - Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita - Article 49 EC - National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market - National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status - Reversal of the burden of proof - Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law - Social protection - Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Pre-emption - Action to combat concealed employment)
   (2006/C 190/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — French system for the grant of licences to performing artists established in another Member State who do not possess a licence issued under comparable conditions in their State of origin — Presumption of salaried status applied to performing artists recognised as service providers established in their State of origin where they usually provide similar services
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By making the grant of a licence to performing artists' engagements agencies, established in another Member State, subject to the need to engage performers, and

                           —

                           by imposing the presumption of salaried status on performing artists who are recognised as service providers and established in their Member State of origin, where they usually provide similar services,

                           —

                           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-420/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Brouillard v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Conclusion of framework contracts — Translation of legal texts into French — Invitation to submit a tender — Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor — Professional capacity — Full legal education requirement — Recognition of professional qualifications — Proportionality — Transparency)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Brouillard v Court of Justice
   (Case T-420/13) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Conclusion of framework contracts - Translation of legal texts into French - Invitation to submit a tender - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional capacity - Full legal education requirement - Recognition of professional qualifications - Proportionality - Transparency))
   (2015/C 363/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J.-M. Gouazé, then J. Pertek and D. Dagyaran, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the letters of 5 June 2013 that the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed to IDEST Communication SA, by which it invited that company, first, to submit tenders in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the applicant would not be engaged in providing the services required under the contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alain Laurent Brouillard to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 March 1996 in Case C-191/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels): AGF Belgium SA v. European Economic Community and Others (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities - Additional motor insurance premiums)

text:
No C 180/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     of 28 March 1996
                       of 28 March 1996                                 in Case C- 1 9 1/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels ): AGF Belgium
in Case C-129/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           SA v. European Economic Community and Others ( ] )
the Audiencia Provincial de Sevilla): criminal proceedings
                against Rafael Ruiz Bernaldez ( 1 )                      (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the
                                                                          Communities — Additional motor insurance premiums)
 (Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles — Exclusion of
            damage caused by intoxicated drivers)                                                  ( 96/C 180/20 )
                            ( 96/C 180/ 19 )
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                                        (Language of the case: Frencb)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-129/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Audiencia Provincial de Sevilla
( Seville Provincial Court ), Spain, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        In Case C- 1 9 1 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the criminal proceedings before that court against Rafael
Ruiz Bernâldez — on the interpretation of Council Directive             of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance
72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the                 ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil           in the proceedings pending before that court between AGF
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the           Belgium SA and the European Economic Community,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability          Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité ( INAMI ),
( OJ , English Special Edition 1972(11 ), p . 360 ), the Second         Fonds National de Reclassement Social des Handicapés,
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 ( OJ No                  Croix-Rouge de Belgique and the Belgian State — on the
L 8 , 1984, p . 17 ) and the Third Council Directive                    interpretation of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges
90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 ( OJ No L 129 , 1990, p . 33 ),               and Immunities of the European Cojnmunities — the Court,
both on the approximation of the laws of the Member States              composed of J. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the         Kakouris , J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch
use of motor vehicles — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                    ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                  Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H.
J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de                     Ragnemalm, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.
Almeida, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                 Jacobs,       Advocate-General;        D.   Louterman-Hubeau,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               on 28 March 1996 , in which it ruled :
28 March 1996 , which it rules :
Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April              1 . Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                         Immunities of the European Communities is to be
States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of           interpreted as covering compulsory charges, such as
the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the                     additional motor insurance premiums, intended to
obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted            contribute to the financing of public interest
as meaning that, without prejudice to the provisions of                      institutions .
Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
30 December ? 983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles, a compulsory insurance            2 . The third paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol is to be
contract may not provide that in certain cases, in particular                interpreted as not applicable to compulsory charges,
where the driver ofthe vehicle was intoxicated, the insurer is               such as additional motor insurance premiums, which
not obliged to pay compensation for the damage to property                   are intended to contribute generally to the financing of
and personal injuries caused to third parties by the insured                 public interest institutions and which do not constitute
vehicle. It may, on the other hand, provide that in such cases               consideration for a specific service.
the insurer is to have a right of recovery against the
insured.
(') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                        3 . The second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol is to
                                                                             be interpreted as meaning that the remission or refund of
                                                                             the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes for which it
                                                                             provides applies to all types of purchase, including
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/ 11
     obtaining a supply of services, which are necessary for                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     the accomplishment of the Communities ' task, and the                                     ( Sixth Chamber )
     amount ofwhich exceeds the threshold laid down by the
     legislation in question.                                                                of 28 March 1996
                                                                      in Case C-299/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the High Court of Ireland ): Anglo Irish Beef Processors
(M OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                      International and Others v. Minister for Agriculture, Food
                                                                                and Forestry (')
                                                                      (Differentiated export refunds — Force majeure —
                                                                      Additional security — Release of security — Resolution of
                                                                                the UN Security Council)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/22 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( First Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                      of 28 March 1996
in Case C-272/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            In Case C-299/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the Tribunal Correctionnel, Arlon ( Belgium )): criminal              of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Ireland for a
proceedings before that court against Michel Guiot and                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                         Climatec SA ( 1 )                            court between Anglo Irish Beef Processors International and
 (Employer's contributions — Loyalty stamps —                         Others and Minister for Agriculture , Food and Forestry —
    Bad-weather stamps — Freedom to provide services)                 on the interpretation and validity of Council Regulation
                          ( 96/C 180/21 )                              ( EEC ) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990 preventing trade by the
                                                                      Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait ( OJ No L 213 ,
                                                                       1990, p . 1 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87
                (Language of the case: French)                        of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
                                                                      for the application of the system of export refunds on
                                                                      agricultural products ( OJNo L 351 , 1987, p . 1 ), as amended
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 354/90 of 9 February
          published in the European Court Reports)                     1990 ( OJ No L 38 , 1990, p . 34 ), the Court ( Sixth Chamber),
                                                                      composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
                                                                       Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.
 In Case C-272/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges ; A. La Pergola ,
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Correctionnel ( Criminal           Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
 Court ), Arlon, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal              Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March 1 996 , the operative
 proceedings before that court against Michel Guiot and                part of which is as follows :
 Climatec SA, as employer liable at civil law — on the
 interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty — the
 Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward                   1 . Article 33 (5) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L.                   No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down
 Sevôn, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,                  common detailed rules for the application of the system
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended
 on 28 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                       by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 354/90 of
 follows :
                                                                            9 February 1990, is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            where, owing to force majeure , goods do not reach their
                                                                            intended country of destination but are exported to
 Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude a Member                      other non-member countries which qualify for a lower
 State from requiring an undertaking established in another                 export refund or none at all, the security forfeited is to be
 Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the                     equal to the difference between the amount ofthe refund
 first-mentioned Member State to pay employers                              paid in advance, and that of the refund actually due.
 contributions in respect of loyalty stamps and bad-weather
 stamps with respect to workers assigned to carry out those
 works, where that undertaking is already liable for
 comparable contributions, with respect to the same workers             2 . Consideration ofRegulation (EEC) No 3665/87 has not
 and for the same period of work, in the State where it is                  disclosed any factor capable of affecting its validity.
 established.
                                                                        (M OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
 (M OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case T-140/10: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/57

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)
   (Case T-140/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 328/90
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-385/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Campania Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2000‐2006 — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 32(3)(f) — Infringement procedure in respect of the Italian Republic concerning waste management in the Campania region — Decision not to make interim payments in connection with the ROP measure concerning waste management and disposal)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-385/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Campania Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2000‐2006 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 32(3)(f) - Infringement procedure in respect of the Italian Republic concerning waste management in the Campania region - Decision not to make interim payments in connection with the ROP measure concerning waste management and disposal))
   (2015/C 007/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-357/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-357/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 331/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-178/12: Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Khwanda v Council

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/27

         Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Khwanda v Council
   (Case T-178/12)
   2012/C 174/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mahran Khwanda (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Jeffrey and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 19, p. 33), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 19, p. 6), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Articles 18(1) and 19(1) of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP (1) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Articles 14(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare that the annulment of paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/37/CFSP and paragraph 22 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 has immediate effect; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the cost of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the substantive criteria for designation under the contested measures are not met in the applicant’s case since there is no legal or factual basis for his designation and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in this respect; furthermore that the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence;

                           —

                           that the applicant produced solid evidence in support of his positive claim and that he has in fact taken active steps to prevent pro-Government elements from accessing Kadmous Tansport’s fleet of buses. Whereas the Council failed to produce sufficient evidence to contest these statements.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the designation of the applicant is in violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and/or in violation of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to inform the applicant of his designation individually; (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons for his listing; (c) respect his rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

      (1)  OJ L 319, p. 56

      (2)  OJ L 16, p. 1


title: Case C-219/05: Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/32

         Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-219/05)
   (2005/C 182/56)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia, Agent, J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to subject the urban waste water from Sueca, its districts and certain municipalities of La Ribera (Valencia) to appropriate treatment before discharging it in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the directive. In accordance with that article, Member States are to ensure that collecting systems are provided at the latest by 31 December 1998 for agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 when they discharge urban waste waters into receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’. Both the agglomeration of Sueca and the majority of the agglomerations of the region of La Ribera in the province of Valencia have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge their water into an area which has been declared ‘sensitive’. However, they have not yet provided collecting systems for all the waste water of those towns.

               —

               The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the directive. Those two articles require that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 inhabitants is to be subject to treatment which is more rigorous than secondary treatment before being discharged in sensitive areas. However, not all waste water from Sueca is subject to treatment which is more rigorous than secondary treatment before being discharged into a sensitive area in the sea. Nor is most of the waste water from the agglomerations of the region of La Ribera subject to appropriate treatment before being discharged into the same sensitive area. The coastal districts of Sueca (El Perelló, Las Palmeres, Mareny de Barraquetes, Playa del Rey and Boga de Mar), with a population in summer of 37 000 — 51 000 persons, only subject their water to secondary treatment before it is discharged into the same sensitive area.

      (1)  OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40


title: Case C-65/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-65/08)
   (2008/C 107/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Europol Frost-Food GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   Question referred
   Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Regulations (EC) Nos 2388/2000 (1) and 2031/2001 (2) valid?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1, and OJ 2000 L 276, p. 92).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1).


title: Case T-280/16: Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/48

         Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)
   (Case T-280/16)
   (2016/C 260/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GEO’ — European Union trade mark No 8 331 076

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 in Case R 1679/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the mark in question or, in the alternative, the mark for the organisational preparation of building projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular wind power stations and wind parks of Class 35, real estate management and brokerage services in the realisation of projects in the area of renewable energies, in particular wind energy plants and wind parks; the repair and maintenance of wind energy plants in Class 37 and the technical project design of projects in the field of energy supply; the technical project design of projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular the field of wind energy plants and wind parks; services of engineers in the field of renewable energies, in particular in the field of wind energy plants; the drawing up of technical and academic opinions in Class 42;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie by order of that court of 24 February 1998 in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam (Case C-61/98)

text:
C 113/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 11.4.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (1)
Tariefcommissie by order of that court of 24 February
1998 in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der                                           (98/C 113/24)
            Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam
                           (Case C-61/98)
                            (98/C 113/23)
                                                                          By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case C-231/95 (Reference for
the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de PremieÁre
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                          Instance, LieÁge): Criminal proceedings against Bent
Excise) of 24 February 1998, which was received at the
                                                                          Carlsen, civil party: Georges Vanhalle.
Court Registry on 2 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of De Haan Beheer BV v. Inspecteur der
Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Rotterdam, on the following
                                                                          (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
question.
Is it to be assumed from rules of written or unwritten
Community customs law that customs authorities are
under an obligation such as that described in
paragraph 6.2 (1) in their relations with those liable to pay
customs duty and, if so, what are the legal consequences,
as regards assessment, entry in the accounts and collection
of the customs debt, if the authorities fail to comply with                     Removal from the register of Case C-277/97 (1)
that obligation?
                                                                                (98/C 113/25)
(1) The applicant, which makes it clear that it made the
    declarations in good faith, has, rightly in the Tariefcommissie's
    view, raised the question whether the customs authorities were
    not under a duty to warn a declarant in its position, within
    the period of approximately 10 days available in this case,           By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
    against possible fraudulent customers. Had it received such a         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
    warning, the applicant would have been able to take account           removal from the register of Case C-277/97: Commission
    of the inordinate risk involved and could ultimately have
    averted liability for a customs debt being incurred in its name
                                                                          of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
    in respect of the subsequent six declarations.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
                        of 17 February 1998                               Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the
                                                                          post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff member in the
in Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri v. Commission of the                  Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Distributive
                    European Communities (1)                              Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives on the conclusion of
(Officials Ð Temporary staff Ð Recruitment procedure Ð                    competition 62T/XXIII/93 and, in so far as may be
Transfer of post Ð Absence of statement of reasons Ð                      necessary, for annulment of the Commission's decision to
         Misuse of powers Ð Legitimate expectations)                      transfer that post to another directorate-general and to
                                                                          replace it with a category B budgetary post Ð the Court
                            (98/C 113/26)                                 of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
                                                                          President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
                 (Language of the case: French)                           Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
                                                                          which it:
In Case T-56/96: Alberto Maccaferri, a former member of
the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                     1. annuls the Commission's decision not to appoint the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                     applicant to the post of grade A 4/A 5 temporary staff
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                           member in the Directorate-General for Enterprise
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v.                                 Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                            on the conclusion of competition 62T/XXIII/93,


title: Case T-360/09: Action brought on 18 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/50

         Action brought on 18 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission
   (Case T-360/09)
   2009/C 282/97
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: E.ON Ruhrgas AG (Essen, Germany), E.ON AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Wiedemann and T. Klose, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants challenge Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 in Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF. In the contested decision, a fine was imposed on the applicants and another undertaking for infringement of Article 81(1) EC, as they had participated in an agreement and concerted practices in the natural gas sector.
   The applicants submit six pleas in support of their action.
   First, the applicants question the applicability of Article 81(1) EC, as the agreements, criticised by the Commission, do not infringe the prohibition on cartels. In that regard, they claim, in particular, that they relate to permissible ancillary arrangements for the creation of the joint venture MEGAL.
   Second, the applicants submit, in the alternative, that the Commission erred in law in assessing the duration of the infringement. In that regard, they claim that the agreements at issue came to an end shortly after the beginning of liberalisation and, in any event, with the formal termination agreement of 13 August 2004.
   Third, the applicants complain of discrimination compared to the parties affected by the parallel Commission decisions of 26 October 2004 in the GDF/ENI and GDF/Enel cases. In that regard, they submit that in those cases the Commission, with reference to the liberalisation which had just occurred, refrained from imposing fines and, furthermore, that it should have done the same in the present case, since the cases are comparable — identical even — in all essential aspects.
   Fourth, the applicants claim that the alleged 1975 agreements are already statute-barred, since they had been terminated more than five years before the Commission’s examination.
   Fifth, the applicants allege an error in law in the calculation of the fines.
   Lastly, it is submitted that the Commission breached the principles concerning liability for competition law infringements, in that E.ON AG cannot be held directly, or indirectly, liable for the alleged infringements committed by E.ON Ruhrgas AG.


title: Case T-323/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Fresyga v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2006/613/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Challengeable act — Lack of direct effect — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Fresyga v Commission
   (Case T-323/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2006/613/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Challengeable act - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Fresyga S.A. (Almería, Spain) (represented by: M.J. Rovira Daudí, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Recchia, Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Jergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Fresyga S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12 2006.


title: Case C-342/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Article 11(1)(c) — Failure to draw up external emergency plans — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-342/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11(1)(c) - Failure to draw up external emergency plans - Incomplete transposition)
   2009/C 113/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that an external emergency plan is drawn up for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-229/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/17

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-229/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 15/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-380/03: Action brought on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/41
Action brought on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG                             —    The Commission must accept liability for the recipient
Foderstof Kompagniet against the Commission of the                             country’s fault on contractual principles, since it used the
                     European Communities                                      recipient country for taking delivery. The delay is there-
                                                                               fore within its sphere of responsibility. The Commission
                                                                               has in principle recognised the applicant’s entitlement to
                          (Case T-380/03)                                      compensation.
                           (2004/C 21/84)
                                                                          —    The basis of the applicant’s claim in respect of delay is
                                                                               the wrongful declaration that the security deposited by
                   (Language of the case: German)                              the applicant was forfeit. The Commission fulfilled its
                                                                               obligations towards the applicant only after a year had
                                                                               elapsed. Admittedly, the applicant did not have direct
                                                                               contact in this regard with the Commission, but the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      national payments office, the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on                         schaft und Ernährung, acted in this respect merely as the
20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet, of                           payments office of the Commission.
Viby (Denmark), represented by L. Harings and K. Landry,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    order the defendant to pay to the applicant:
      —     82 702,12 EUR
      —     10 394,00 USD, together with interest at the rate of          Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
            5 % above the applicable Danish minimum lending               ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
            rate from 1 November 1999, or alternatively since                                      Communities
            the lodging of the application, and
      —     828,73 USD;                                                                          (Case T-381/03)
2.    order the defendant, in accordance with Article 87(2) of
      the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to pay the applicant’s
                                                                                (2004/C 21/85)
      costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant’s claim for compensation from the Commission
is brought under Article 238 EC and concerns a contract for
the supply of rye for breadmaking to the Russian Federation.              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In addition, it makes a claim on account of delay.                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 November 2003 by Izar
                                                                          Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
                                                                          Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
The applicant’s arguments are as follows:
                                                                          Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.
—     It was awarded a contract for delivery of rye for bread-
      making to the Russian Federation in accordance with
      Regulation (EC) No 111/1999. It has suffered consider-              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      able damage due to the unwarranted delay in the
      acceptance of the delivery by the recipient country. The
      delay arose because the Russian Federation complained               —    Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
      initially of defects in the goods delivered. However, after              decision of the Commission of 27 May 2003 on the
      closer investigation by the Commission, no such defects                  suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and
      were found. The applicant had to fund the sums paid to
      the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung in
      Deutschland (BLE, German Federal Institute for Agri-                —    Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR
      culture and Food) for a period of approximately one year.                in these proceedings.


               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-313/01 R (1)

   (2005/C 57/68)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 25 November 2004, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-313/01 R. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.


title: Opinion 1/13: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014  — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Accession of third States — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Exclusive external competence of the European Union — Risk of undermining the uniform and consistent application of EU rules and the proper functioning of the system which they establish)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/4

         Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — European Commission
   (Opinion 1/13) (1)

   ((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Accession of third States - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Exclusive external competence of the European Union - Risk of undermining the uniform and consistent application of EU rules and the proper functioning of the system which they establish))
   (2014/C 462/05)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the Opinion

   The exclusive competence of the European Union encompasses the acceptance of the accession of a third State to the Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction concluded in The Hague on 25 October 1980.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-758/14: Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Infineon Technologies v Commission

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/28

      Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Infineon Technologies v Commission
      (Case T-758/14)
      (2015/C 107/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, U. Soltész, P. Linsmeier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission in case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips of 3 September 2014 (notified to the applicant on 5 September 2014), in particular Article 1(a), Article 2(a), and Article 4, second paragraph;

                  —

                  in the alternative, order a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on Infineon Technologies AG pursuant to Article 2(a) of the decision; and

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 in case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s right to be heard, in particular by failing to adopt a new statement of objections. The applicant submits that:

                              —

                              the Commission failed to present the evidence in a way which would have enabled the applicant to identify the conduct complained of and to defend itself properly;

                              —

                              the Commission has violated Infineon’s procedural rights by introducing key pieces of evidence at a very late stage and as a result Infineon could not defend itself in a comprehensive reply to a statement of objections and was denied the opportunity to rebut the evidence used against it in an oral hearing; and

                              —

                              some of the documents the Commission based itself on have not been disclosed to Infineon and cannot be used against it.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the principle of good administration and Infineon’s rights of defence by applying a ‘fast track process’.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contacts by Infineon with its competitors referred to in the decision did not violate Article 101(1) TFEU. The applicant submits that:

                              —

                              the evidence on which the Commission relied on lacks credibility and is therefore not sufficient to establish the facts described in the decision beyond reasonable doubt (in dubio pro reo); and

                              —

                              the facts described by the Commission do not constitute a ‘restriction by object’ as claimed by the Commission.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in applying the concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ (SCI) given that, first, Infineon was only liable for seven bilateral contacts (out of 41 contacts in total), secondly, it was not aware of them and finally, it could also not have reasonably foreseen the bilateral contacts between the other participants.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made manifest errors when calculating the fine by not excluding such turnover from the ‘value of sales’ (the basis for the calculation of the fine) which has clearly not been affected by the infringement.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated its own fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality, in particular by setting the ‘gravity percentage’ at the same level for all parties.