title: Case T-768/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Pocemon project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-768/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Pocemon project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))
   (2017/C 070/21)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 216088 to fund the project entitled ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

               2.

               ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

               3.

               ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-544/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/68

         Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission
   (Case T-544/13)
   2013/C 344/124
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Batchelor, Solicitor, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1) in its entirety, or in any event those provisions relating to cleaning performance and energy efficiency; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in relation with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the contested regulation is unlawful and relies in that respect on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its competence under Article 10(1) of the enabling legislation, Directive 2010/30/EU (1), when it adopted this delegated act, as:

                           —

                           Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of energy consumption during use. The contested regulation misleads consumers as to the vacuum cleaner’s energy efficiency because cleaning performance is tested only when the vacuum cleaner has an empty receptacle and so not ‘during use’;

                           —

                           Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of essential resources consumed by an appliance during use, namely the dust bags and filters consumables. The delegated act provides no such information to consumers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) because the contested regulation does not explain why there is insufficient ‘technological progress’ to permit testing of energy consumption/cleaning performance in a dust-loaded state. Nor does it explain why the Commission postponed dust-loading for consideration only in five years’ time.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the fundamental principle of equality by adopting a contested regulation which discriminates in favour of bagged vacuum cleaners to the disadvantage of bagless vacuum cleaners and/or vacuum cleaners based on cyclonic technology. Loss of suction due to clogging — a feature particularly of bagged vacuum cleaners — cannot be detected by pristine state testing. The relative merits of bagless and cyclonic technology vacuum cleaners cannot be readily identified by consumers.

      (1)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 1)


title: Case C-150/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Eva-Marie Brännström, Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Eva-Marie Brännström, Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
   (Case C-150/12) (1)

   2013/C 9/59
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case C-23/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Placing fresh bananas in free circulation — Weight declared not corresponding to actual weight — Obligation of customs authorities to check the weight declared — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 68 et seq. — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 290a — Annex 38b — System of own resources — Loss of revenue — Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-23/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Placing fresh bananas in free circulation - Weight declared not corresponding to actual weight - Obligation of customs authorities to check the weight declared - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 68 et seq. - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 290a - Annex 38b - System of own resources - Loss of revenue - Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11)
   2011/C 139/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, Agent)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: I. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 68 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), of Article 290a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and of Annex 38b thereto, and infringement of Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulations (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Placing bananas in free circulation — Weight declared not corresponding to actual weight — Own resources — Loss of revenue

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by systematically accepting, throughout the years 1998 to 2002, customs declarations of release for free circulation of fresh bananas by its customs authorities, although they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the declared weight of the bananas did not correspond to their actual weight and because of the Portuguese authorities’ refusal to make available own resources corresponding to the loss of revenue and interest due for late payment, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 68 and 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 290a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, and under Articles 2, 6, and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and under the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.


title: Case C-500/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
2.3.2002                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 56/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
—     Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No
      40/94 in respect of goods classed as ‘dolls to play with’:
      the contested judgment does not take sufficient account                                         (Case C-500/01)
      of the difference between indications of origin (valid
      marks) and those of a purely informative nature (indi-
      cations falling within Article 7(1)(c)). The Court of                                            (2002/C 56/17)
      First Instance erred in law by reducing the scope of
      Article 7(1)(c) to the descriptive indication of the product
      itself (‘that the sign in question is descriptive of the dolls
      themselves’) and by excluding from the scope of that
      provision the description of the dolls’ characteristics             An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
      (‘descriptive of that which the dolls represent’). In               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
      addition, the Court of First Instance erred in law in               2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      finding that ‘the persons targeted, when making their               represented by Stefan Rating, of its Legal Service, with an
      purchasing decision, [must] conflate the toy and what it            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      represents’; this requires a certain causality between the          Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      descriptive indication and the purchasing decision which
      has nothing to do with Article 7(1)(c). The Court of First
      Instance disregarded the fact that numerous descriptive
      indications describe not the kind of product but what it            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      represents or its content; that is the general position as
      regards toys, but it also applies in respect of books and
      magazines, video games, etc.                                        (1) declare that, by failing to comply with the provisions of
                                                                                Article 4c of Directive 90/388/EEC (1), as amended by
                                                                                Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Kingdom of Spain has failed
—     Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No                   to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC;
      40/94, in so far as concerns ‘accessories for dolls in the
      form of playthings’: the Court of First Instance misapplied
      the principle of trade-mark law — in itself correct — that          (2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      the protectability of a mark is to be considered by
      reference to the goods in respect of which the application
      is made, inasmuch as it wrongly analysed the goods
      ‘accessories for dolls in the form of playthings’ separately
      from the rest of the classification. The indication ‘access-        Pleas in law and main arguments
      ories for dolls in the form of playthings’ is so manifestly
      related to the principal goods — ‘dolls to play with’ —
      that it must inevitably share the same fate, in terms of
      trade-mark law, as that meted out to those principal                The Commission considers that it will not be possible, at least
      goods.                                                              as regards Telefónica, for subscription charges to be aligned
                                                                          with costs prior to the beginning of 2003. This results from
                                                                          the practical limitations imposed by the Spanish system of
—     Infringement of Article 12 of Council Regulation No                 maximum price limits, which prevent Telefónica from making
      40/94 and of the judgment in BMW v Deenik (2), in so                more rapid changes to the amount of the subscription charge.
      far as concerns ‘accessories for dolls in the form of               The Commission further maintains that it can hardly be argued
      playthings’.                                                        that a re-balancing spread over a period of some seven years
                                                                          meets the criterion of maximum possible rapidity laid down
—     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No            by the directive, and that the re-balancing has proceeded in
      40/94: since, in the present case, the refusal pursuant to          parallel with the opening-up to competition of the Spanish
      Article 7(1)(b) on the ground of insufficient distinctive           telecommunications market.
      character was based on the same arguments as those
      applying in respect of Article 7(1)(c), it is logical that the
      outcome of the present case can only be uniform, i.e. the
      opposite of that contained in the contested judgment.               (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
                                                                              tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192
                                                                              of 24.7.1990, p. 10).
                                                                          (2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                          Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 February 1999 in Case              full competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 74 of
    C-63/1997, [1999] ECR I-925.                                              13.3.1996, p. 13).


title: Case C-556/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Holcim (Romania) SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-317/12: Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/22

         Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Holcim (Romania) SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-317/12: Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission
   (Case C-556/14 P)
   (2015/C 065/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Holcim (Romania) SA (represented by: L. Arnauts, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 18 September 2014 in case T-317/12, Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-317/12 and the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court.

         Alternatively, grant the forms of order sought by the Applicant as requested before the General Court:

               —

               on the grounds of articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, find the EU liable for the conduct of the European Commission, with regard to the damage suffered by the applicant following the theft of 1 0 00  000 allowances;

               —

               order the EU to pay to the applicant the market value of the stolen allowances, which would not have been recovered on the day of the final judgment, at the market price on the day of the theft, plus interest at the rate of 8 % per annum as from 16 November 2010;

               —

               consequently, order the European Union to pay to the applicant a sum of 1 € on a provisional basis;

               —

               order the parties to agree on the amount of damages and/or the claimant to prove the final extent of his damage, within 3 months following the interlocutory judgment;

               —

               declare the judgment enforceable.

         And in any case:

               —

               order the EU to pay the costs;

               —

               declare the judgment enforceable.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In Regulation 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004‘for a standardized and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council’ (3), the European Commission has set up a standardized system of national registries (EU-ETS) to track and secure the issue, acquisition, transfer and cancellation of European Union Allowances (EUAs) (allowances to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas within the framework of the international agreements regarding their reduction). The national registries are connected and supervised by a central administrator at the European Commission, called Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL).
   Several national registries of the EU-ETS have been attacked by cybercriminals. On November 16, 2010, the EU-ETS accounts of Holcim (Romania) were illegally accessed. By a series of operations carried out by unauthorized persons, 1 6 00  000 EUAs were transferred to two foreign accounts, of which only 6 00  000 were recovered thanks to the intervention of the Romanian National Registry (NEPA). This represents a loss of approximately 1 5 0 00  000 € since, due to the position of the European Commission, Holcim (Romania) was not able to recover the remaining stolen allowances.
   The European Commission consistently refused (i) to block the stolen allowances, although they each have an individual number and are easily trackable at any time within the EU-ETS and (ii) to disclose in which accounts and/or national registries they are located, with a view to permitting Holcim to institute legal proceedings in the Member State(s) concerned. The European Commission also ordered the national registries to take the same position, on the basis of a duty of confidentiality.
   The claim for damages against the European Union, pursuant to Article 21 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, and Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, which was dismissed by the General Court in its Judgment of 18 September 2014, is based:

                  First Plea: on the liability of the European Union for unlawful decisions of the European Commission, consisting in:

                           i.

                           a misinterpretation of Article 10 (1) of Regulation 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004‘for a standardized and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council’,

                           ii.

                           a breach of Article 20 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC’ and

                           iii.

                           breaches of several general principles of law (the principle of proportionality and of protection of legitimate expectations, the duty of care and the right to an effective judicial protection with regard to property rights), when deciding not to disclose or allow disclosure of the location of stolen European Emission Allowances (EUAs) in the framework of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS).

                  Second plea: on the liability of the European Union for unlawful implementation of Articles 19 and 20 of Directive 2003/87 and Regulation 2216/2004 of the European Commission with regard to the security, confidentiality and functioning of the EU-ETS.

                  Third plea: on the liability of the European Union for lawful acts affecting a particular circle of economic operators in a disproportionate manner in comparison with others (unusual damage) and exceeding the limits of the economic risks inherent in operating in the sector concerned (special damage), without the legislative measure that gave rise to the alleged damage being justified by a general economic interest.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, p. 32.

      (2)  Decision 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, OJ L 49, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 386, p. 1.


title: Case T-70/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/40              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— pursuant to Article 229 EC, should it uphold the decision             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against
    in whole or in part, reduce the fine.                                      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-70/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (2000/C 149/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In the contested decision, the Commission asserts that the
applicant was, between 1977 and 1995, party to an agreement
which had the object and the effect of restricting or distorting        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition in the supply of seamless standard OCTG and line            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
pipe within the common market and which affected trade                  European Communities on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer,
between Members States.                                                 residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                        of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.
This application raises six main pleas against the Commission’s
factual and legal assessment, namely:                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the contested decision of 24 January 2000;
— manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
— failure properly to assess the trade barriers which are the
    natural explanation of the applicant’s lack of activity on
    the French, German and Italian markets for the duration             Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the alleged infringement;
                                                                        The applicant has worked since 1984 as a member of the
— breach of essential procedural requirements by preventing             Commission’s temporary staff (interpreter). His temporary
    the applicant from exercising its rights of defence to the full     appointment was renewed a number of times. In 1988 his
    and by the manner in which it obtained the documentary              position as a member of the temporary staff was prolonged
    evidence used against the applicant;                                indefinitely. He was on that occasion also required to take part
                                                                        in the next external open competition for interpreters. In 1989
                                                                        the applicant unsuccessfully applied to sit internal competition
                                                                        COM/LA/2/89. His action against the decision of the selection
— failure to assess properly the evidence on the Commission’s           board in that competition was upheld. He was also successful
    file which seriously undermines not only the finding in             in his action against the decision terminating his appointment
    recital 164 of the decision but also irretrievably weakens          as a member of the temporary staff. Contrary to the agreements
    the validity and accuracy of the key elements of the case           concluded, the Commission decided to re-open and continue
    against the applicant;                                              internal competition COM/LA/2/89, and it called on the
                                                                        applicant to take part in it. The applicant was unsuccessful in
                                                                        that competition. The Commission thereupon terminated his
— failure to assess properly in law the applicant’s partici-            contract for an indefinite period, referring to the decision of
    pation in the alleged infringement; and                             the selection board in the aforementioned internal compe-
                                                                        tition. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. By
                                                                        decision of 24 January 2000 the Commission confirmed the
                                                                        decision to dismiss him. The present action challenges that
— failure to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, in               decision.
    accordance with the principles laid down in the relevant
    Commission Notices.
                                                                        Grounds of the application:
                                                                        — the decision dismissing the applicant is wrongly based on
                                                                             the decision of the selection board in the aforementioned
                                                                             internal competition not to include him on the list of
                                                                             suitable candidates;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 149/41
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition                    — the contested decision infringes procedural rules, since it is
    constitute an inappropriate measure by which to give                     based on documents obtained by the Commission in 1994
    effect to the earlier judgments;                                         in the context of an investigation carried out in a separate
                                                                             case; such investigations were furthermore carried out in
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition are                    application of a Commission decision which was in fact
    contrary to the agreements reached between the parties;                  illegally adopted on the basis of both Articles 53 of the
                                                                             EEA Agreement and 85 of the EC Treaty; the contested
                                                                             decision also illegally relies on undated documents from
— the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was                      an unknown source;
    terminated on the basis of his results in an internal
    competition, whereas, according to a Commission letter,
    failure to pass an external competition alone can constitute         — the contested decision fails to demonstrate the existence of
    a ground for terminating the employment relationship; the                the alleged infringement;
    contested decision dismissing the applicant is not reasoned;
    the dismissal was notified for a date which is legally               — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
    incorrect.                                                               producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an effect on trade between Member States;
                                                                         — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
                                                                             producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an appreciable effect on competition in the EC;
                                                                         — the duration of the infringement found by the Commission
                                                                             must at any event be regarded as erroneous;
Action brought on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   — in the event that the contested decision can be regarded as
                                                                             covering the EU offshore regions and in particular the UK
                                                                             offshore, the Commission has failed to state reasons for its
                          (Case T-71/00)                                     decision;
                         (2000/C 149/76)                                 — the fine imposed on the applicant should be reduced
                                                                             notably on the ground that any alleged agreement between
                                                                             the European producers should have been regarded as
                                                                             separate from the alleged agreement between the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                           and Japanese producers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Monica Cunningham of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
Brussels.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999 in
    case IV/EA/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes;                                                     (Case T-74/00)
— alternatively, to substantially reduce the fine imposed upon                                   (2000/C 149/77)
    the applicant;
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.                                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan
                                                                         GmbH, of Lüchow, Germany, represented by Ulf Doepner,
The applicant submits that the contested decision should be              Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Düsseldorf,
annulled and/or the fine imposed on it at least substantially            Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
reduced for the following reasons:                                       Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.


title: Case T-58/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — BYK v OHIM (Substance for Success) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Substance for Success — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/50

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — BYK v OHIM (Substance for Success)
   (Case T-58/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Substance for Success - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/87)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: BYK-Chemie GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Kroher and E. Hettenkofer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2007 (Case R 816/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Substance for Success as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BYK-Chemie GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-298/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 264/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di. s.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-299/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/62)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                           European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di.
                                                                            s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —       annul the contested refusal.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione Cuoio                       —       order the Commission to pay the costs.
e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                          (Case T-298/03)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 264/61)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                            advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione
Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                                Limited against the Council of the European Union
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-300/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/63)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                                                                            Communities on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                            Limited, New Delhi (India), represented by P. Bently, QC,
                                                                            K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, R. MacLean and J. Branto, Solici-
                                                                            tors, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 31/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                           Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                       of 18 October 2001                                  and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                                                                           nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                           decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
       in Case T-333/99: X v European Central Bank (1)
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 71/1999-3), which
(Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank —                       was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legality of                  Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
conditions of employment — Rights of the defence —                         A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
     Dismissal — Harassment — Misuse of the internet)                      D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                           (2002/C 31/14)
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-333/99: X, residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers,          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli and V. Saintot and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 9 November
1999 to continue the suspension of the applicant and to
withhold one half of his basic salary, and of the decision of
18 November 1999 dismissing the applicant — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October
2001, in which it:                                                                              of 15 November 2001
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           in Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                             European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                    (Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Com-
                                                                           mission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision
                                                                           or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction
                                                                                of new modalities — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/16)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 19 September 2001
in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     In Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
                             (OHIM) (1)                                    mission of the European Communities, residing at Senninger-
                                                                           berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the ‘Operational
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                   Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and
                                                                           related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the
                           (2002/C 31/15)                                  majority of the trade unions/staff associations on 19 January
                                                                           2000 or, alternatively, of the composition of the consultation
                                                                           body as provided for by those rules in so far as it excludes the
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from that body — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
In Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,                   judgment on 15 November 2001, in which it:


title: Case F-45/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Member of the temporary staff — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/101

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol
   (Case F-45/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Europol staff - Member of the temporary staff - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   (2016/C 048/117)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mark Van der Veen (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann, J. Arnould and C. Falmagne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s implied decision not to follow up the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 34.


title: Case C-13/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2012 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/10

         Appeal brought on 10 January 2012 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-190/08: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-13/12 P)
   2012/C 65/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocate, N. Mizulin, solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the Contested Judgment in its entirety, including the order on costs;

               —

               Give in itself the final judgment on the matter, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul the Contested Regulation (1) insofar as it affects the Appellants; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs incurred by the Appellants both at first instance and in connection with the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants in support of their appeal before the Court of Justice put forward the following arguments:

               The Appellants submit that the General Court (i) distorted the clear sense of the relevant evidence and in any event did not adequately state reasons insofar as the construction of the export price by using a notional profit margin is concerned.

               The Appellants also submit that the General Court (ii) erred in law when it found that the

               Stabilization and Association Agreement between the EU and the FYROM provides grounds for lawful discrimination against the Appellants; (iii) erred in law in its assessment of the obligations stemming from Articles 6(7) and 8(4) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (2) and in the assessment of the principle of rights of defence; (iv) erred in its assessment of the significance of procedural guarantees and of the relevant duties of the Institutions in the context of administrative proceedings in antidumping cases and (v) distorted the clear sense of the facts in relation to the undertaking offered by the Appellants and that offered by another producer, thus reaching a wrongful conclusion in this regard that affects the validity of the Contested Judgment.

               Finally the Appellants submit that the General Court (vi) erred in its interpretation of Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation and the methodology in determining the material injury of the Union Industry in antidumping cases; (vii) erred in its interpretation of causal link pursuant to Article 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and (viii) erred in its appreciation of the obligation imposed on the Institutions to state reasons insofar as the injury determination in antidumping cases is concerned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia
   OJ L 55, p. 6

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 56, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-437/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC — Dental practitioners)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-437/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC - Dental practitioners)
   (2005/C 330/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-437/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 October 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Schmidt, C. Tufvesson and A. Manville) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts and E. Juhász, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing dentists (‘Dentisten’) under Paragraphs 4(3) and 6 of the Law on Dentists (Dentistengesetz)

                           —

                           to engage in their occupation under the title ‘Zahnarzt’ (dental practitioner) or ‘Zahnarzt (Dentist)’ (dental practitioner (dentist)), and

                           —

                           to make use of the exception laid down in Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001,
                           although they do not meet the minimum requirements under Article 1 of Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners, as amended by Directive 2001/19, to be covered by the rules under those directives,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 19b of Directive 78/686 and Article 1 of Directive 78/687;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13. 12. 2003.


title: Case T-483/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Armour Pharmaceutical v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (GALZIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GALZIN — Earlier national word mark CALSYN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods and signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 — Findings of OHIM — Admissibility)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Armour Pharmaceutical v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (GALZIN)
   (Case T-483/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GALZIN - Earlier national word mark CALSYN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods and signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Findings of OHIM - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 310/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (Bridgewater, New Jersey United States) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Armour Pharmaceutical Co. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case C-223/10: Action brought on 7 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/12

         Action brought on 7 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-223/10)
   2010/C 195/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Adam and I. Hadjiyiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to implement Commission Directive 2008/74/EC of 18 July 2008 amending, as regards the type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2005/78/EC, (1) or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2008/74 expired on 2 January 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 192, p. 51.


title: Case T-164/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission
   (Case T-164/07 P)
   (2007/C 155/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in the Case F-30/05 (Sundholm v Commission);

               —

               Give judgment again, and annul the Commission decision drawing up her Career Development Report for 2003 and order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By her appeal the applicant seeks to annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action in which she had sought the annulment of her Career Development Report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the plea alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.


title: Case T-67/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/25

         Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council
   (Case T-67/12)
   2012/C 109/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sina Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1) insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

      (2)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)


title: Case T-592/11: Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Anbouba v Council

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/62

      Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Anbouba v Council
      (Case T-592/11)
      (2012/C 25/118)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare this application admissible in all its elements;

                  —

                  Declare it well founded in all its pleas in law;

                  —

                  Grant the joinder of the present application with the application in Case T-563/11;

                  —

                  State that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which is to be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole;

                  —

                  Accordingly

                              —

                              Annul in part Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011, and Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 by deleting the listing of Mr Issam Anbouba and references to him as supporting the current regime in Syria;

                              —

                              Failing that, annul Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

                  —

                  Failing that, declare those decisions and the regulation inapplicable as regards Issam Anbouba and order the removal of his name and references from the list of persons who are the object of sanctions by the European Union;

                  —

                  Order the Council provisionally to pay one euro in damages as compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered by reason of the designation of Mr Issam Anbouba as a supporter of the current regime in Syria;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant raises two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council.


title: Case C-382/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau
   (Case C-382/16)
   (2016/C 343/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

      Question referred

   Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, (formerly Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), in conjunction with Article 48 EC), preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that income of a resident taxpayer derived from business relations with a company established in another Member State in which that taxpayer has a direct or indirect shareholding of at least 25 % and with which that taxpayer has agreed terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances must be calculated as if that income had been earned pursuant to terms agreed on between unrelated third parties, if such a correction is not made in respect of income from business relations with a resident company and the legislation in question does not afford the resident taxpayer the opportunity to present evidence that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the company established in the other Member State?


               28.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 163/11

         Action brought on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-6/14)
   (2014/C 163/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 3 September 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 July 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 1999 in Case C-22/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent): criminal proceedings against Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, Smeg NV, Adia Interim NV (Competition — National legislation allowing only "recognised dockers" to perform certain dock duties — Meaning of "undertaking" — Special or exclusive rights)

text:
8.1.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 6/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82
                                                                             EC), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer on
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     individuals the right to oppose the application of legislation of a
                                                                             Member State which requires them to have recourse, for the
                      of 16 September 1999                                   performance of dock work, exclusively to recognised dockers such as
                                                                             those referred to in the Belgian Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock
                                                                             work, and to pay those dockers remuneration far in excess of the
in Case C-22/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     wages of their own employees or the wages which they pay to other
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): criminal proceedings against                    workers.
Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, Smeg NV, Adia Interim
                               NV (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(Competition — National legislation allowing only ‘recog-
nised dockers’ to perform certain dock duties — Meaning of
          ‘undertaking’ — Special or exclusive rights)
                           (2000/C 6/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 21 September 1999
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-67/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)                            the Kantongerecht, Arnhem): Albany International BV v
                                                                                Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie (1)
In Case C-22/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hof van Beroep                   (Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme —
(Court of Appeal), Ghent, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in               Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of a
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against                               sectoral pension fund as an undertaking)
Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, Smeg NV, Adia Interim NV
— on the interpretation of Article 90(1) and (2) of the EC                                               (2000/C 6/02)
Treaty (now Article 86(1) and (2) EC), read in conjunction
with Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
12 EC) and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
81 EC and 82 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray and
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-                                        in the European Court Reports)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
1999, in which it has ruled:                                                 In Case C-67/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kantongerecht,
Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC), read in               Arnhem, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty           ings pending before that court between Albany International
(now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 12 EC), and            BV and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie — on


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-194/03 (1)

   (2005/C 45/38)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 19 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-194/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Georg Friedrich Baur Jr., executor of the estate of Georg Friedrich Baur Sr. v Hauptzollamt Kiel.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.03.


title: Case C-452/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Zako SPRL v Sanidel SA
   (Case C-452/17)
   (2017/C 347/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zako SPRL

      Defendant: Sanidel SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) be interpreted as requiring the commercial agent to seek and visit customers or suppliers outside of the business premises of the principal?

               2.

               Must Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC be interpreted as requiring the commercial agent to carry out no tasks other than those relating to the negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal or to the negotiation and conclusion of such transactions on behalf of and in the name of the principal?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, must Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC be interpreted as requiring the commercial agent to carry out tasks other than those relating to the negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal, or to the negotiation and conclusion of such transactions on behalf of and in the name of the principal, only secondarily?

      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case F-81/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/69

         Action brought on 3 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-81/13)
   2013/C 344/127
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted in the promotion exercise 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision, notified by the Administrative Notices No 27/2012 of 26 October 2012, not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the promotion exercise 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-100/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — ZZ a. o. v EEAS

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/46

         Action brought on 4 October 2013 — ZZ a. o. v EEAS
   (Case F-100/13)
   2014/C 45/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EEAS’s decision not to pay, from 1 January 2014, to officials assigned to Argentina, Chile, China (Hong Kong), Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan the allowance for living conditions anymore.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision MDR/C6/(2012) of the EEAS dated 19 December 2012 by which the AIPN has decided to eliminate the living conditions allowance for staff members based in the EU Delegations and Offices to Argentina, China (Hong Kong) Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan;

               —

               as a consequence, order payment of the living conditions allowances at a 15 % rate from 1 January 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-140/00: Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
24.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/11
2. Does the function of the target price for milk set by the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     Council under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 preclude a                   richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March
     Member State from:                                                    2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien
                                                                           Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                           und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirek-
     (a) making use of the target price as an indicator of                      tion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
          the actual price movements due to the common
          agricultural policy; and
                                                                                (Case C-138/00)
     (b) treating the fact that a milk producers’ co-operative in
          that State has achieved for its members milk prices                                        (2000/C 176/19)
          that are below the target price, but are nearer to the
          target price in one period of time than another, as
          supporting a conclusion that the co-operative exercises          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          market power which contributes to prices being higher            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
          than they would have reached under more competitive              hof (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) of 30 March 2000,
          conditions.                                                      received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobi-
3. Are Articles 28 to 30, EC (ex Articles 30, 34 and 36) and               lien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
     Articles 49 and 55 (ex Articles 59 and 66) to be interpreted          und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
     as precluding a Member State from applying national laws              Wien, Niederdösterreich und Burgenland (Tax Board for
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition                 Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the following
     Act 1998 in such a way as to prohibit a milk producers’               question:
     co-operative which has been found to enjoy market power
     from sending milk produced by its members to be
                                                                           ‘Do payments which a non-member of a capital company
     processed by contractors on its behalf, including in other
                                                                           makes to the company for the acquisition of dividend rights
     Member States, as a step being taken by the co-operative
                                                                           constitute “assets of any kind contributed or to be contributed
     for the purpose of exploiting its position in the market in
                                                                           by the members” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of
     its favour?
                                                                           Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July concerning indirect
                                                                           taxes on the raising of capital (1)?’
4. Where large vertically-integrated dairy co-operatives exist
     and are permitted to operate in other Member States,
     is the general principle of non-discrimination, whether               (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
     independently or as given specific effect in Articles 12
     and/or 34 EC (ex Articles 6 and 40), to be interpreted as
     precluding a Member State from applying national laws
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition
     Act 1998 to prohibit a milk producers’ co-operative which
     has been found to enjoy market power from:
     (a) acquiring or building further plant for the processing
          of milk produced by its members, which would give
          the co-operative the ability to exploit still further its        Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of
          position in the market in its favour; or                         the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) sending milk produced by its members to be processed
          by contractors on its behalf, whether within the                                           (Case C-140/00)
          Member State concerned or in other Member States, as
          a step being taken by the co-operative for the purpose
          of exploiting its position in the market in its favour?                                    (2000/C 176/20)
                                                                           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(1) EEC Council: Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of compe-         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
    tition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 30,     of the European Communities on 12 April 2000 by the
    20.04.62, p. 993 [SE SER1 (59-62) p. 129]).                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on
    the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
                                                                           Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official
    (OJ L 148, 28.6.68, p. 13 [SE SER1 68(I) p. 176]).                     seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrange-
                                                                           ment for the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                           Commission, Centre Wagner.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 imposed a clear obligation
                                                                          on Member States to take penal or administrative action
                                                                          against any person responsible for a breach of the control
(1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996             and conservation rules. The obligation to impose effective
                                                                          sanctions was made even clearer in Article 31 of Regulation
    — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for           2847/93, which required that the sanctions should be capable
          the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,                   of depriving those responsible of the economic benefits
                                                                          of their infringements, and, further, that they should be
                                                                          proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement so as to
    — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as               have a deterrent effect. The United Kingdom has failed to
          required by the relevant Community Regulations,                 impose such sanctions.
    — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
          quota was exhausted, and
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
    — in failing to take administrative or penal action against               establishing a Community system for the conservation and
                                                                              management of fishery resources (OJ L 24, 27.01.1983, p. 1).
          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or             (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
          against such other person as was responsible for such               establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
          infringement,                                                       (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
                                                                          (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
                                                                              lishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ L 207,
    the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations                29.07.1987, p. 1).
    imposed on it by (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)                 (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
    No 170/83 (1) or Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92 (2)                   establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
    (from 1 January 1993) and of Article 1(1) of Regulation                   policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1).
    (EEC) No 2241/87 (3) or Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93 (4)
    (from 1 January 1994); (ii) of Article 11(2) of Regulation
    (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 21 of Regulation 2847/93;
    (iii) Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2241/87 or Article 31
    of Regulation 2847/93;
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           hof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the
                                                                          case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                                Finanzamt für Körperschaften I
The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate detailed
rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation 170/83 and Article 9(2)                                      (Case C-141/00)
of Regulation 3760/92, with effect from 1 January 1993.
                                                                                (2000/C 176/21)
It has been established that the United Kingdom fishermen
frequently exceeded the quotas which were set for them in the
relevant Community regulations and it can only be concluded               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
either that the detailed rules were not appropriate for the               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
proper utilisation of the quotas or that the United Kingdom               (Federal Finance Court) of 3 February 2000, received at the
did not check that those rules were being complied with.                  Court Registry on 14 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                          Finanzamt für Körperschaften I on the following questions:
Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not ensure compliance
with Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article                 1. Does the tax exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(c)
1(1) of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93                    of Regulation 77/388/EEC (1) apply only where the medical
from 1 January 1994).                                                          care is provided by an ‘individual’ or is it independent of
                                                                               the legal form of the person providing the care?
In all the cases of overfishing mentioned by the Commission
the United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under                   2. If the exemption is also applicable to capital companies,
Article 11 of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 21 of Regulation                     does it cover wholly or partially the activities of a capital
2847/93 from 1 January 1994) to prohibit the fishery pro-                      company in the form of out-patient nursing (therapeutic
visionally when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have                   treatment, general care and domestic help) which is
been exhausted.                                                                provided by qualified nurses?


title: Case T-151/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — NC v Commission (Grants — OLAF investigation — Finding of irregularities — Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of 18 months — Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database — Temporal application of various versions of the Financial Regulation — Essential procedural requirements — Retroactive application of the more lenient law)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — NC v Commission
   (Case T-151/16) (1)

   ((Grants - OLAF investigation - Finding of irregularities - Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of 18 months - Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database - Temporal application of various versions of the Financial Regulation - Essential procedural requirements - Retroactive application of the more lenient law))
   (2017/C 256/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NC (represented: initially by J. Killick, G. Forwood, Barristers, C. Van Haute and A. Bernard, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Killick, G. Forwood, C. Van Haute and J. Jeram, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Dintilhac and M. Clausen, and subsequently by F. Dintilhac and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 28 January 2016 imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from procurement and grant award procedures financed from the general budget of the European Union for a period of 18 months and consequently registering it in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database provided for in Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 28 January 2016 imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of NC from procurement and grant award procedures financed from the general budget of the European Union for a period of 18 months and consequently registering it in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database provided for in Article 108 (1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.