title: Case C-523/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study — Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia
   (Case C-523/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate specialist programmes of study - Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of grants subject to conditions targeting providers of post-graduate programmes of study - Condition requiring 10 years’ continuous experience)
   2014/C 45/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione srl

      Defendant: Regione Puglia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Grants of public money, co-financed by the European Social Fund, for students enrolled in post-graduate Masters degree courses — Regional legislation designed to enhance the level of education locally and making the award of student grants conditional upon the level of professionalism of the Masters degree course providers — Provider which has the requisite experience in terms of the number of hours of training completed, but which has not achieved this in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which requires higher education establishments with which students applying for a regional study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund plan to enrol to demonstrate 10 years’ experience where such establishments are neither universities recognised by that national law nor establishments organising approved Masters degree courses.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-187/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of Hüseyin Gözütok

text:
C 212/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                  drive unoccupied Category D motor vehicles on ‘journeys
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,               necessitated by extraordinary circumstances’ without
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty              defining that criterion in any detail.
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.                                                               —     Paragraphs 20(4) and 40(5) in conjunction with Para-
                                                                               graph 20(4) of the Führerscheingesetz are contrary to the
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt                 directive, inasmuch as they do not require holders of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                          Category C1 driving licences to undergo periodic medical
                                                                               examinations.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 80, 25.3.1999, p. 20.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      icht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of
                              Austria                                                            Hüseyin Gözütok
                         (Case C-178/01)                                                          (Case C-187/01)
                         (2001/C 212/16)                                                          (2001/C 212/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April             European Communities by order of 30 March 2001 of the
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne),
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Marie             which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European           for a preliminary ruling under Article 35(1) EC in conjunction
Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             with Paragraph 1(2) EuGHG in the criminal proceedings
office of Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service           against Hüseyin Gözütok on the following question of
of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    interpretation concerning Article 54 of the Convention of
                                                                         19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the
                                                                         common borders (the Schengen Implementing Convention):
(1) declare that, by enacting Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the
      Führerscheingesetz (Law on driving licences), the Repub-
      lic of Austria has infringed the fifth indent of Article 3(1)
      of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on                 Is there a bar to prosecution in the Federal Republic of
      driving licences (1) and that, by enacting Paragraphs 20(4)        Germany under Article 54 of the Schengen Implementing
      and 40(5) in conjunction with Paragraph 20(4) of the               Convention if, under Netherlands law, a prosecution on the
      Führerscheingesetz, the Republic of Austria has infringed          same facts is barred in the Netherlands?
      point 4 of Annex III to that directive;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                In particular, is that also the case where a decision by the
                                                                         Public Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue proceedings after the
                                                                         fulfilment of conditions (Netherlands ‘transactie’), which under
                                                                         the law of other Contracting States requires judicial approval,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         bars prosecution before a Netherlands court?
—     Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the Führerscheingesetz goes fur-
      ther than Article 3 of the directive in relation to
      authorisation to drive Category C motor vehicles, inas-
      much as it permits an extensive class of persons also to


title: Case C-476/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 21/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
—     Does Article 2621 of the Codice Civile (as amended by                Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
      Legislative Decree No 61 of 11 April 2002), which                    mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
      provides for a sentence of imprisonment of up to                                                 lic of Austria
      18 months and consequently a maximum limitation
      period from the time when the offence is committed of                                          (Case C-476/03)
      four and a half years, satisfy those requirements? That
      occurs in a legal system which provides, after the
      investigating judge completes his investigation and the                                         (2004/C 21/30)
      public prosecutor brings criminal proceedings, for review
      by the investigating judge to ascertain that there is
      sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial and
      for the possibility of three tiers of courts before judgment         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      is definitive and thus, in the case of a conviction, the             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      penalty is actually imposed. In addition, account must be            17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
      taken of the complexity of the findings required under               Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Dr
      Article 2621 of the Codice Civile, given the thresholds              Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      of criminal relevance set by Articles 2621, paragraphs 3
      and 4.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8; English Special Edition: Series-I I        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
    Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.                                                      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
                                                                                91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s
                                                                                railways (1) or, at any rate, by failing to inform the
                                                                                Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
Tributaria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 by order                           2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
of that Court of 9 October 2003 in the case of Banca                             Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against Agenzia                             95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) or,
                    Entrate Ufficio Cremona                                      at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
                                                                                the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                         (Case C-475/03)
                                                                           3.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
                          (2004/C 21/29)                                         administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (3) or,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-                          the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
taria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 (Cremona Tax Court,                     under that directive;
Second Chamber) of 9 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in                  4.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
the case of Banca Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against                   proceedings.
Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona on the following question:
Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that it
prohibits a charge to IRAP of the net value of production
deriving from the regular exercise of independent activity to              The period for transposition of those directives expired on
produce or exchange goods or to provide services?                          15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 145 of 3.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 376 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                           (3) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 29.


title: Case C-455/08: Action brought on 17 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/12

         Action brought on 17 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-455/08)
   (2009/C 32/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos, M. Konstantinidis and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by way of Article 49 of S.I. No. 329 of 2006, the Irish transposition measure for Directive 2004/18/EC (1), and Article 51 of S.I. No 50 of 2007, the Irish transposition measure for Directive 2004/17/EC (2), Ireland has established the rules governing the notification of contracting authorities' and entities' award decisions and their reasoning to tenderers in such a way, which in practice may imply that by the time tenderers are fully informed of the reasons for the rejection of their offer, the standstill period for the conclusion of the contract has already expired;

               —

               thereby, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC (3) and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Directive 92/13/EEC (4) as interpreted by the European Court of Justice in its judgments handed down in case C-81/98 (5) (the ‘Alcatel judgment’) and in case C-212/02 (6) (‘Commission v Austria’).

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Irish S.I. No 329
   Article 49 of the Irish S.I. No 329, which is the Irish transposition measure of Directive 2004/18/EC, requires that tenderers be informed of the award decision by the most rapid means of communication as soon as practicable after the contracting authority took the decision. Calculated from the date on which tenderers were informed of the award decision, the standstill period which needs to elapse before the conclusion of the contract must be at least 14 days.
   However, under the Irish law, the contracting authority is required to give the reasons for the rejection of a tender only when it receives such a request. The contracting authority must provide the reasons ‘as soon as possible and in any event no later than 15 days’. In the Commission's view, this means that the standstill period may have already lapsed by the time an unsuccessful tenderer is fully informed of the reasons for the rejection of his offer.
   In order to comply with the requirements that derive from the case law of the Court of Justice in its Alcatel judgement and in Commission vs Austria it is essential to ensure that the award decision is reasoned in due time to allow it to be the subject of an effective appeal, undertaken within the standstill period. The Commission submits that the Irish rules are not in line with this requirement as they do not guarantee that tenderers are informed of the reasons for the rejection of their offer in due time and well before the expiry of the standstill period. This impedes the tenderers' right to effective legal remedies, as required by Directive 89/665/EEC.
   Irish S.I. No 50 of 2007
   According to article 51 of S.I. No 50 of 2007, which is the Irish transposition measure of directive 2004/17/EC, when contracting entities notify tenderers of the award decision they must indicate to the unsuccessful tenderers the ‘principal reason, or reasons, why the tender is not the selected tender’. The ‘characteristics and the relative advantages of the selected tender’ shall be communicated by the contracting entity to the unsuccessful tenderers ‘as soon as practicable, and in any case within 15 days’ after receiving a request to do so. The standstill period is 14 days, calculated from the notification of the award decision. In the Commission's view this means that the standstill period might already have lapsed by the time an unsuccessful tenderer is fully informed of the reasons for the rejection of his offer.
   The Commission submits that, regarding award procedures covered by directives 2004/17/EC and 92/13/EEC, the Irish legislation establishes the rules for the notification of tenderers in a manner that restricts the unsuccessful tenderers' right to effective legal remedies and is not in conformity with the remedies directives in force, directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public work contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, p. 33).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 76, p. 14).

      (5)  C-81/98 — Alcatel Austria AG and others, Siemens AG Österreich, Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AK v. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr — judgment of 28 October 1999.

      (6)  C-212/02 — Commission v Republic of Austria — judgment of 24 June 2004.


title: Case T-611/11: Action brought on 1 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/34

         Action brought on 1 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)
   (Case T-611/11)
   2012/C 32/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Polynesia)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2011 in Joined Cases R 1776/2010-1 and 1886/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: South Pacific Management.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Manea Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 24, 25, 43 and 44.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of the word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue and as regards the assessment of the importance of the distinctive character acquired by use of the mark ‘SPA’ and of the likelihood of confusion, as well as breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 as regards the assessment of the reputation of the marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’.


title: Case T-405/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Vertical combination of the colours grey and red) (Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark consisting in a vertical combination of the colours grey and red — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Vertical combination of the colours grey and red)
   (Case T-405/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark consisting in a vertical combination of the colours grey and red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 13/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 372/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Bahn AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-444/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — ESGE v OHIM — Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg (KMIX)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/44

         Action brought on 28 September 2010 — ESGE v OHIM — Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg (KMIX)
   (Case T-444/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ESGE AG (Bussnang, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2;

               —

               Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2 so that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2008 in Case B 1252958 is annulled;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘KMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BAMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 40

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

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

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


title: Case C-186/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/113/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to and supply of goods and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period as regards Gibraltar)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-186/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/113/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to and supply of goods and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period as regards Gibraltar)
   2010/C 80/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, in the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-646/11: Action brought on 27 June 2012 — CD v Council of the European Union

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/21

         Action brought on 27 June 2012 — CD v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-646/11)
   2012/C 258/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CD (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul the Council’s decision of 11 November 2011 by which it refused to remove the applicant’s name from Annex III A to Council Decision 2011/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, as amended by Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the rights of defence, on the ground that the contested measures do not allow the applicant to challenge their validity before the Court and the Court to exercise its power of review of their lawfulness.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of personal liability, on the ground that the contested measures provide for liability and sanctions without establishing the applicant’s personal liability in the facts justifying the sanctions.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis, on the ground that the contested measures do not establish the existence of a positive legal rule which was infringed by the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment, on the ground that the contested measures lack any justification based on the facts.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging lack of compliance with the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the applicant’s personal involvement in the collective decision for which sanctions were imposed is not proportionate to that sanction.


title: Case T-618/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014  — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/25

         Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)
   (Case T-618/14)
   2014/C 351/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in Case R 2449/2013-2 on the grounds of illegality and failure to observe the applicable legislative provisions relating to the Community trade mark, give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought set out in this application to the effect that the three-dimensional mark applied for is sufficiently inherently distinctive, grant this application and order that the three-dimensional Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 48  051 be entered into the register of trade marks in Class 30 of the International Classification as it is consistent with the requirements of Community trade mark law;

               —

               once this action has been allowed and the aforementioned mark entered into the register, order the person opposing the claim to pay the costs of these proceedings and to order OHIM to repay the appeal fee.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a Mexican taco for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 748 051

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-367/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission (Action for failure to act — Request to act — Manifest inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/18

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission
   (Case T-367/09) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Request to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2011/C 282/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Bordes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the European Union delegation to Nigeria have failed to act and, secondly, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure to act

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Tecnoprocess Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-533/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 28 December 2006 — 02 Holdings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 28 December 2006 — 02 Holdings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited
   (Case C-533/06)
   (2007/C 56/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: 02 Holdings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited

      Defendant: Hutchinson 3G UK Limited
   Questions referred

               1.

               Where a trader, in an advertisement for his own goods or services uses a registered trade mark owned by a competitor for the purpose of comparing the characteristics (and in particular the price) of goods or services marketed by him with the characteristics (and in particular the price) of the goods or services marketed by the competitor under that mark in such a way that it does not cause confusion or otherwise jeopardize the essential function of the trade mark as an indication of origin, does his use fall within either (a) or (b) of Art. 5 of Directive 89/104 (1)?

               2.

               Where a trader uses, in a comparative advertisement, the registered trade mark of a competitor, in order to comply with Art. 3a of Directive 84/450 (2) as amended must that use be ‘indispensable’ and if so what are the criteria by which indispensability is to be judged?

               3.

               In particular, if there is a requirement of indispensability, does the requirement preclude any use of a sign which is not identical to the registered trade mark but is closely similar to it?

      (1)  OJ L 40, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 250, p. 17.


title: Case C-27/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 January 2012 — TBG Limited, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 January 2012 — TBG Limited, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-27/12)
   2012/C 98/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: TBG Limited

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU), can an own OCT be regarded as a third State, in which case it would be possible to rely on Article 56 EC in respect of the movement of capital between a Member State and the own OCT?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary in order to determine whether, for the purposes of Article 57(1) EC (now Article 64(1) TFEU), there has been an increase, for account to be taken in the present case — in which the withholding tax on participation dividends paid by a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands to its holding company established in the Netherlands Antilles was increased from the 1993 rate of 7,5 or 5 % to 8,3% as from 1 January 2002 — exclusively of the increase in the Netherlands withholding tax, or must account also be taken of the fact that, as from 1 January 2002, the Netherlands Antillean authorities have — in conjunction with the increase in the Netherlands withholding tax — granted an exemption in respect of participation dividends received from a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands, whereas previously those dividends formed part of profits taxed at a rate of 2,4 to 3 % or 5 %?

                           (b)

                           If account must also be taken of the tax reduction in the Netherlands Antilles effected by the introduction of the participation exemption referred to in question 2(a) above, should Netherlands Antillean implementation arrangements (in the present case: Netherlands Antillean rulings practice), the result of which may have been that prior to 1 January 2002 — including in 1993 — the actual tax liability in respect of dividends received from the/a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands was substantially lower than 8,3%, also be taken into consideration?


title: Case F-79/12: Action brought on 26 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Action brought on 26 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-79/12)
   2012/C 319/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Duvekot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decisions to dismiss the applicant from his functions and to reduce the amount of his pension following disciplinary proceedings brought finding an infringement of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of 29 September 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-415/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore (Italy)) — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI (State aid for employment — Guidelines on aid to employment — Guidelines on national regional aid — Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 — Notion of job creation — Calculation of the increase in employment)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore (Italy)) — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI
   (Case C-415/07) (1)

   (State aid for employment - Guidelines on aid to employment - Guidelines on national regional aid - Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 - Notion of ‘job creation’ - Calculation of the increase in employment)
   2009/C 141/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA

      Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3) — Ascertaining compliance with the requirements for obtaining aid — Ascertaining whether there has been an increase in employment — Method of calculation

      Operative part of the judgment

   In order to determine whether there has been an increase in employment, the guidelines on aid to employment should be interpreted as meaning that the average number of annual working units for the year preceding recruitment should be compared with the average number of annual working units for the year following such recruitment.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-367/06: Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/15

         Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-367/06)
   (2006/C 261/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3rd June 2003 (1) on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; and

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 23 September 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 235, 23.09.2003, p. 10 - 21


title: Case C-610/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Online sharing platform — Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV
   (Case C-610/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Online sharing platform - Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder))
   (2017/C 277/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting Brein

      Defendants: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata relating to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-60/07: Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Spain v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/49

         Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-60/07)
   (2007/C 95/98)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditures incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it relates to the subject-matter of this action;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Kingdom of Spain challenges the contested Decision, in so far as it provides for a financial correction in respect of the failure to meet environmental conditions in the withdrawals of fruit and vegetables for animal feed in the Valencian Community during the financial years 2001, 2002 and 2003, in the amounts of EUR 2 858 447,88, EUR 4 357 238,89 and EUR 3 679 878,76 respectively.
   In support of its claim, the applicant alleges:

               —

               Non-existence of the irregularities complained of by the Commission, since the relevant rules of the Valencian Community did not give rise to a parallel system of biodegradation.

               —

               Breach of the principle of proportionality by the financial correction made, in so far as, the Commission did not establish the real amount of the financial risk that the supposed irregularities found entailed for the EAGGF; and secondly, the controls carried out by the Spanish authorities with regard to the withdrawal of products for animal feed were far superior to those required by the Community rules.

               —

               In the alternative, partial lack of basis for the financial correction applied.


title: Case C-2/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey
   (Case C-2/17)
   (2017/C 104/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

      Other parties: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the expression ‘the contribution basis in Spain which is closest in time to the reference periods’, referred to in Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be interpreted as excluding those contribution bases arising from the application of Spanish domestic legislation (1) under which a migrant worker who has returned to Spain and whose actual final Spanish contributions are higher than the minimum bases may conclude an agreement maintaining the contributions in accordance only with the minimum bases, whereas, if he were a non-migrant worker, he could have concluded such an agreement on higher bases?

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to the previous question, and in accordance with Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, do taking the last actual contributions made in Spain, duly updated, and regarding the contribution period under the agreement maintaining contributions as a neutral period or interval constitute remedies appropriate for indemnifying the damage done to the migrant worker?

      (1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.


title: Case F-29/10: Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Lorenzo v EESC

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/59

         Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Lorenzo v EESC
   (Case F-29/10)
   2010/C 179/103
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Guillermo Lorenzo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant among the officials promoted to grade AD13 under the 2009 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the EESC appointing authority, adopted and published on 30 June 2009, not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion procedure;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the EESC appointing authority’s decision of 5 February 2010 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-88/96)

text:
 No C 233 / 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 On 22 April 1996 the Director decided, on the basis of a               by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,
 communication from Eurostat, to extend the applicant's                 Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 secondment to Eurostat until 31 May 1 996 . The applicant's            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue
 application of 8 May 1996 for a prolongation of that                   Philippe II .
 extension until 30 September 1996 was refused by the
 Director, by letter of 21 May 1996 from Cedefop's head of             The applicants claim that the Court should :
 administration .
                                                                       — annul decision K(96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
 The applicant maintains that the contested decisions are                   13 March 1996 on special depreciation allowances for
 illegal , on the grounds set out below.                                    aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
                                                                            Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ( income
 In particular :                                                            tax implementation regulation ), inasmuch as that
                                                                            decision concerns the extension of the validity of that
— the decisions were adopted in breach of essential
                                                                            provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
     procedural requirements . No adequate statement of
                                                                            1999 ,
     reasons for their adoption was provided,
— the contested decisions are illegal from a substantive               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     standpoint, since they breach the general principles of
      Community law applicable to the public service . The             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicant complains in particular of the following
      breaches :                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in     Case T-25/96         Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher
     — breach of the agreements concluded between                      Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft
           Cedefop and the applicant and of the guarantees             mbH v . Commission .
           given by the former to the latter, and , consequently,
           infringement of his rights,
     — breach of the principle that the administration's acts
           are binding on itself, and of the principle of the
          protection of legitimate expectations, since                Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against
           Cedefop's decisions contravened the guidelines laid                the Commission of the European Communities
          down with regard to its future conduct, and                                        ( Case T-88/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233 /32 )
     — breach of the general duty of an employer to have
          regard for the welfare and interests of his employees,
          since the decisions failed to take account of the                           (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          applicant's legitimate interests,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
     — breach of the principle of equality of treatment,              Communities was brought before the Court of First
          since , unlike those persons who are remaining in           Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 1996 by
          Berlin, the applicant has not been given credit for his     Gisèle Lienard, residing at Woluwé-Saint-Etienne
          years of service .                                           ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
                                                                      Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
For the same reasons, the decision to transfer the applicant's        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
place of employment with Cedefop to Thessaloniki from                 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
3 June 1996 was illegal .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 1995
                                                                           terminating with effect from 1 November 1995 the
                                                                           arrangement whereby the applicant was granted the
Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                                                                           additional tax abatement for dependent children .
deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd
Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                      European Communities
                          ( Case T-86/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 96/C 233/31 )
                                                                      The applicant, who is the ex-wife of a Commission official ,
                                                                      contests the Commission's decision granting her former
                 (Language of the case: German)                       husband the additional tax abatement provided for under
                                                                      the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 4 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for
Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 1996 by                the benefit of the European Communities .
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen,
Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH ,                          The applicant points out that on 2 1 November 1 994 she and
Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented              her former husband signed pre-divorce agreements by
 ---pagebreak---    10 . 8 . 96         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 233/ 19
  mutual consent, whereby she was given custody of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
  couple's two children, and responsibility for looking after
  them and managing their assets . In compliance with those
  agreements, the Commission granted her, pursuant to                   — annul in its entirety Commission Decision 96/315/ECSE
                                                                              ('the contested Decision '),
  Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , an additional tax
  abatement equivalent to twice the amount of the allowance
  for each dependent child . Upholding a complaint submitted            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
  by the applicant's ex-husband , the Commission                             including those of the applicant .
  subsequently decided that he alone was to be given the tax
  abatement in dispute .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  In contesting that decision, the applicant argues, first, that it
  infringed Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , in so far
  as that provision grants a tax abatement ' for each dependent         The applicant is public limited company incorporated in
  child of the person liable'. The applicant explains that, in          England and engaged in the steel industry . It regularly
  accordance with the intention of both parties and as a                distributes within the territory of the Community iron and
  matter of fact, she had been entrusted with sole                      steel products of the kind defined in Annex I to the ECSC
 responsibility for custody of the couple's children, and for          Treaty.
  looking after them and managing their assets, and that
 determination of the maintenance payment — confirmed by               The applicant challenges a Decision which is addressed to
 the national court primarily on the basis of the parties'             Ireland , and in which the Commission declares compatible
 respective salary slips — takes account of the fiscal                 with the common market the grant of £ Irl 38,298 million by
 implications of that decision .                                       way of aid to Irish Steel .
 According to the applicant, the contested decision is also
 vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, having           According to the applicant the contested Decision :
 regard to the financial responsibilities which she in practice
 shoulders, the maintenance payment to which her                       — purports to authorize the grant of State aid to an
 ex-husband has voluntarily agreed amounts to                               individual undertaking, notwithstanding the terms of
 approximately 25 % of the actual expenses incurred for the                 Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC . The ' Fifth SAC '
 maintenance and education of the children . Thus it is clear               declared that such aid would be regarded as prohibited .
 that, by comparison with the applicant's contribution to the               If the Commission decides that different measures are
 payment of expenses, her ex-husband's share cannot be                      ' necessary' for the attainment of the objectives of the
 regarded as amounting to 'heavy financial responsibilities'.               Community, it should amend or replace the ' Fifth SAC '
 Also, since the Commission pays the family allowances                      and not take individual decisions . As the ' Fifth SAC ' was
 directly to the applicant, and this does not affect her                    binding and comprehensive until such time as it was
 ex-husband's income, those allowances should not be taken                  amended , it was not open to the Commission to
 into      account  in   order     to  establish   his   financial          circumvent it by adopting individual decisions on the
 responsibilities .                                                         same subject-matter under Article 95 . The contested
                                                                            Decision should therefore be annulled on the ground of
 Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission has                      lack of competence .
 infringed the duty to state reasons .
                                                                       — contains infringements of the ECSC Treaty and of rules
                                                                            of law relating to its application . In particular :
                                                                           — the grant of the present State aid will lead to a
                                                                                distortion of competition, because, contrary to the
                                                                                established case-law of the Court and Commission
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC                               practice, not only has this aid been authorized
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             without requiring any reduction in capacity, but Irish
                         ( Case T-89/96 )                                         Steel is still permitted to increase its capacity and its
                           ( 96/C 233/33 )                                        production ,
                                                                           — in adopting the contested Decision the Commission
                 (Language of tbe case: English)                                  took into account considerations irrelevant to the
                                                                                test laid down in Article 95 , namely whether the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  grant of aid is 'necessary to attain . . . one of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 , 3
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1996 by                           and 4 '. In any event, the grant of the aid in question is
British Steel pLC, represented by Mr William Sibree and Mr                        not necessary within the meaning of Article 95 to
Philip Raven, Solicitors of the Supreme Court, Slaughter and                      attain one of the objectives of the ECSC Treaty,
May, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15                     — the contested Decision infringes the principle of
Côte d'Eich, Luxembourg.                                                         non-discrimination,


title: Case T-491/09: Action brought on 3 December 2009 — Spain v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/44

         Action brought on 3 December 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-491/09)
   2010/C 37/62
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it is the object of the present action; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

               1.

               Infringement, with regard to the financial correction applicable to aid to olive oil production, of Article 7(4) of Regulation 1258/1999 (1) and Article 31(1) of Regulation 1290/2005, (2) since the contested decision applies them in inappropriate circumstances, given that the theoretical irregularities relied on by the Commission to justify the financial corrective measures decided upon are insufficient.

               2.

               That the irregularities alleged by the Commission concerning the financial correction applicable to aid for premiums for ovines and caprines do not exist, which implies that the contested decision infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation 1258/1999 and Article 31(1) of Regulation 1290/2005, by applying those provisions in inappropriate circumstances. It is alleged, in that regard, that on-the-spot checks were carried out during the retention period, in accordance with Article 24(2) of Regulation 2419/2001, (3) and that the problems alleged by the Commission in relation to the registration books of farms and to the fact that the inspectors made no observations concerning registrations not carried out, do not affect the determination of the number of animals eligible for subsidy of the farm throughout the entire retention period.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).


title: Case C-543/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Electronic communications — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 25(2) — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 12 — Provision of directory enquiry services and directories — Obligation placed on an undertaking assigning telephone numbers to pass to other undertakings data in its possession relating to the subscribers of third-party undertakings)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-543/09) (1)

   (Electronic communications - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 25(2) - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 12 - Provision of directory enquiry services and directories - Obligation placed on an undertaking assigning telephone numbers to pass to other undertakings data in its possession relating to the subscribers of third-party undertakings)
   2011/C 194/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervening parties: GoYellow GmbH, Telix AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) and Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — Provision of telephone directory services — Scope of the obligation imposed on an undertaking which has assigned telephone numbers to subscribers to pass on to other undertakings all the data relevant for publishing a universal directory or providing a universal information service — Data relating to subscribers of third-party undertakings

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which undertakings assigning telephone numbers to end-users must make available to undertakings whose activity consists in providing publicly available directory enquiry services and directories not only data relating to their own subscribers but also data in their possession relating to subscribers of third-party undertakings.

               2.

               Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which an undertaking publishing public directories must pass personal data in its possession relating to subscribers of other telephone service providers to a third-party undertaking whose activity consists in publishing a printed or electronic public directory or making such directories obtainable through directory enquiry services, and under which the passing on of those data is not conditional on renewed consent from the subscribers, provided, however, that those subscribers have been informed, before the first inclusion of their data in a public directory, of the purpose of that directory and of the fact that those data could be communicated to another telephone service provider and that it is guaranteed that those data will not, once passed on, be used for purposes other than those for which they were collected with a view to their first publication.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-190/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Antonio Márquez Somohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Antonio Márquez Somohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra
   (Case C-190/13)
   2013/C 189/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antonio Márquez Somohano

      Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions such as Articles 48 and 53 of Ley Orgánica 6/2001 de Universidades of 21 December 2001, which do not provide for a maximum duration for successive employment contracts, in circumstances where there are no domestic legal measures in place to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts for university lecturers?

               2.

               Must the definition of ‘permanent worker’ set out in clause 3 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the second paragraph of additional provision 15(1) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores which states that the employment contract of such a worker may be terminated where the contracting authority fills the post occupied?

               3.

               In view of the fact that under domestic law it is deemed an appropriate measure, for the purposes of preventing and punishing the misuse of temporary employment contracts in the private sector, for workers that are considered to have a contract of indefinite duration to be entitled to receive compensation where the contract is terminated for a reason unrelated to the individual worker concerned, and that no equivalent measure exists in the public sector, is it an appropriate measure within the terms of clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC for government employees with contracts of indefinite duration to be given the same right to receive compensation as is laid down by law in respect of workers having contracts of indefinite duration in the private sector?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-100/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Insufficient and incomplete examination — Obligation to state reasons — Selectivity)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/19

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-100/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - State aid - Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Insufficient and incomplete examination - Obligation to state reasons - Selectivity))
      (2016/C 211/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-184/06: Action brought on 14 July 2006 — Commission v Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/36

         Action brought on 14 July 2006 — Commission v Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory
   (Case T-184/06)
   (2006/C 212/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Ström, Agent, assisted by P. Elvinger, lawyer)

      Defendants: Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory
   Form of order sought by the applicant
   The applicant claims that the court should:

               —

               summon the parties and mediate between them; if not

               —

               accept that this application is in due form and declare it admissible; and

               —

               primarily, order the company Dane-Elec Memory to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 55 878 with interest for late payment, in pursuance of the ‘upon first demand’ guarantee;

               —

               in the alternative, order the company ICN to repay the advance of EUR 55 878 made by the Commission with interest for late payment, on the ground of non-fulfilment of its contractual undertakings in connection with the Crossemarc project;

               —

               order the unsuccessful party, under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings;

               —

               order the interim execution of the judgement to be given, notwithstanding appeal and without security;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas in law and actions, and, in particular, the right to add to its claim for payment.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded on 28 February 2001 with, among others, the company Internet Commerce Network (ICN), Contract IST-2000-25366 covering the carrying-out of a project ‘Cross-lingual Multi Agent Retail Comparison — Crossemarc’ in the framework of a programme for research, technological development and demonstration technologies of Information Society Technologies (IST) 1998-2002 (1). By letter of guarantee signed on 1 September 2000 Dane-Elec Memory, ICN's parent company, guaranteed ICN's contractual commitments to the Commission under Contract IST-2005-25366.
   An advance of payment was made by the Commission to the parties associated in the project, including ICN, through a coordinator, NCSR ‘Demokritos’. Subsequently, the coordinator requested ICN's contribution in accordance with the tasks defined in the project. Since that contribution was not made and ICN's representative informed the coordinator of financial difficulties encountered by ICN, the coordinator contacted the company Dane-Elec Memory, the guarantor of ICN's obligations. The director of Dane-Elec Memory informed the coordinator that ICN was going to withdraw from the project and repay the advances. Having received no confirmation in writing of that withdrawal or the commitment to repay, the coordinator of the project and the Commission sent ICN a demand for repayment of the advances made. Since that demand received no reply, a request to honour the financial guarantee in accordance with its commitments in the letter of guarantee was sent to Dane-Elec Memory. It refused to honour that guarantee on the ground that the contractual default was not proven by the Commission. That refusal was repeated in spite of the fact that the Commission gave reasons for its demand.
   On the basis of the arbitration clauses contained in Contract IST-2000-25366 between ICN and the Commission and in the letter of guarantee issued by Dane-Elec Memory in favour of the Commission, the Commission brought this action seeking an order that Dane-Elec Memory pay the Commission the amount of the advances paid to ICN plus interest for late payment, in pursuance of the ‘upon first demand’ guarantee. In the alternative, the applicant seeks an order that ICN repay the advance made by the Commission plus interest for late payment, for non-fulfilment of its contractual obligations in connection with the ‘Crossmarc project’.

      (1)  Call for expression of interest published in OJ 1999 C 12, p. 5.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-39/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Dijon): Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales (Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax credit for research)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-39/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif, Dijon): Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales (1)

   (Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Tax credit for research)
   (2005/C 115/14)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-39/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal administratif, Dijon (France), made by decision of 30 December 2003, received at the Court on 2 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Laboratoires Fournier SA and Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administratror, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 49 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which restricts the benefit of a tax credit for research only to research carried out in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Case C-432/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of  24 November 2005  in Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 24 November 2005 in Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern
   (Case C-432/05)
   (2006/C 36/47)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of 24 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd and Justitiekanslern on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the requirement of Community law that national procedural rules must provide effective protection of an individual's rights under Community law to be interpreted as meaning that an action for a declaration that certain national substantive provisions conflict with Article 49 of the EC Treaty must be permitted to be brought in a case where the compatibility of the substantive provisions with that article may otherwise be examined only as a preliminary issue in, for example, an action for damages, proceedings concerning infringement of the national substantive provisions or judicial review proceedings?

               2.

               Does the requirement of effective legal protection under Community law mean that the national legal order must provide interim protection, through which national rules which prevent the exercise of an alleged right based on Community law may be disapplied in relation to an individual so that he is able to exercise that right until the question of the existence of the right has been finally settled by a national court?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
               Does it follow from Community law that, where the compatibility of national provisions with Community law is being challenged, in its substantive examination of an application for interim protection of rights under Community law a national court must apply national provisions governing the conditions for interim protection, or in such a situation must the national court apply Community law criteria for interim protection?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is that Community law criteria must be applied, what are those criteria?


title: Case C-311/05 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS)

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/11

         Appeal brought on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS)
   (Case C-311/05 P)
   (2005/C 243/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS), was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A., represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and uphold its claims.
   Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appeal is founded on three grounds of appeal:
   The first ground of appeal alleges infringement by the Second Board of Appeal of the principle of legality and of the rights of defence of Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A.. The Court of First Instance should not have confined itself to consideration of the legality of the contested decision but should have carried out a new and thorough examination of the case in the light of the wording of the contested decisions and the specific claims of the applicant and the intervener.
   The second ground of appeal alleges that the Second Board of Appeal infringed the principle of legality and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94. (1) The Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in that it rectified and corrected with its own arguments the substantive errors made by the Second Board of Appeal in connection with the application of the grounds of refusal in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 to the appellant's figurative marks.
   The third ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal fails to state grounds for the purposes of Article 253 EC. The judgment under appeal does not show clearly and unequivocally the reasons which led the Court to hold that the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 applied to the applicant's figurative marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Case C-531/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen and Others v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment — Projects in respect of which an assessment must or must not be carried out — Exploratory drilling operations — Point 14 of Annex I — Notion of ‘extraction of oil and natural gas for commercial purposes’  — Obligation to carry out an assessment where a certain quantity of gas is extracted — Point 2(d) of Annex II — Notion of ‘deep drilling’  — Point 1 of Annex III — Notion of ‘cumulation with other projects’ )

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen and Others v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
   (Case C-531/13) (1)

   ((Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment - Projects in respect of which an assessment must or must not be carried out - Exploratory drilling operations - Point 14 of Annex I - Notion of ‘extraction of oil and natural gas for commercial purposes’ - Obligation to carry out an assessment where a certain quantity of gas is extracted - Point 2(d) of Annex II - Notion of ‘deep drilling’ - Point 1 of Annex III - Notion of ‘cumulation with other projects’))
   (2015/C 118/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen, Heinrich Kornhuber, Helga Kornhuber, Karoline Pöckl, Heinze Kornhuber, Marianne Kornhuber, Wolfgang Kornhuber, Andrea Kornhuber, Alois Herzog, Elfriede Herzog, Katrin Herzog, Stefan Asen, Helmut Zopf, Ingrid Zopf, Silvia Zopf, Daniel Zopf, Maria Zopf, Anton Zopf sen., Paula Loibichler, Theresa Baumann, Josep Schindlauer, Christine Schindlauer, Barbara Schindlauer, Bernhard Schindlauer, Alois Mayrhofer, Daniel Mayrhofer, Georg Rindberger, Maria Rindlberger, Georg Rindlberger sen., Max Herzog, Romana Herzog, Michael Herzog, Markus Herzog, Marianne Herzog, Max Herzog sen., Helmut Lettner, Maria Lettner, Anita Lettner, Alois Lettner sen., Christian Lettner, Sandra Lettner, Anton Nagelseder, Amalie Nagelseder, Josef Nagelseder, Gabriele Schachinger, Thomas Schachinger, Andreas Schinagl, Michaela Schinagl, Lukas Schinagl, Michael Schinagl, Maria Schinagl, Josef Schinagl, Johannn Mayr, Christine Mayr, Martin Mayr, Christian Mayr, Johann Mayr sen., Gerhard Herzog, Anton Mayrhofer, Siegfried Zieher

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

      Appearing before the Court: Rohöl-Aufsuchungs AG

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Point 14 of Annex I to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an exploratory drilling operation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which an attempt to extract petroleum and natural gas is to be made to ascertain whether a reservoir is commercially viable is not covered by that provision;

               2)

               Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2009/31, read in conjunction with point 2(d) of Annex II to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment in respect of deep drilling, such as the exploratory drilling operation at issue in the main proceedings, may follow from that provision. The competent qnational authorities must therefore examine in particular whether, having regard to the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2009/31, an environmental impact assessment must be carried out. In that context, it is appropriate in particular to examine whether the effects on the environment of exploratory drilling operations could, because of the effects of other projects, be greater than where there were no other such projects. That assessment cannot be limited by municipal boundaries.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case T-163/15: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission (Action for annulment — Italian market in poultrymeat — Exceptional support measures to resolve specific problems concerning the poultrymeat sector in Italy — Export refunds for poultrymeat destined for certain African countries — Rejection of the applicant’s request for exceptional measures — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/57

         Order of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
   (Case T-163/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Italian market in poultrymeat - Exceptional support measures to resolve specific problems concerning the poultrymeat sector in Italy - Export refunds for poultrymeat destined for certain African countries - Rejection of the applicant’s request for exceptional measures - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 027/74)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Delta Group agroalimentare Srl (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 9 February 2015 (Ref. Ares (2015) 528512), sent in reply to the applicant’s request for the adoption of exceptional support measures for the poultrymeat market on the basis of Article 219(1) or of Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Delta Group agroalimentare shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.