title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 22 April 1996 in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg (Case C-300/96)

text:
No C 336/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
       produced in various Member States and is the subject of            Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Federal
       significant intra-Community trade; the production                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
       volume has for some years been comparable to, if not                                  European Communities
       higher than , that in Greece; feta consumption primarily                                  ( Case C-301 /96 )
       involves feta produced outside Greece . Lastly, feta is
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/35 )
       subject to long-standing rules in several Member States,
       dating from before the introduction of the Greek rules,            An action against the Commission of the European
       and the name 'feta ' features in various Community acts            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       adopted since 1975 , without being reserved to a product           European Communities on 16 September 1996 by the
       of Greek origin .                                                  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
                                                                          Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of the Economy
 ( ! ) Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 July 1996 on the registration   D-53107, and Thomas Oppermann , of the University of
       of geographical indications and designations of origin under the   Tubingen, acting as Agents .
       procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No 2081 /92 ( OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p. 1 ).                The applicant claims that the Court should :
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                                                                              26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
                                                                              Volkswagen group for its Mosel and Chemnitz factories;
                                                                              furthermore, annul Article 1 of that decision to the
                                                                              extent that it limits the amounts declared to be
                                                                              compatible with the common market to DM 418,7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig                        million for direct investment grants and DM 120,4
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                   million for investment premiums,
22 April 1996 in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur Land               — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
                  und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg                              26 June 1996 in so far as it provides that the combined
                           ( Case C-300/96 )                                  effective aid intensity, expressed as gross grant
                             ( 96/C 336/34 )                                  equivalent, must not exceed 22,3 % for Mosel II or
                                                                              20,8 % for Chemnitz II, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig                               proceedings .
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht ( Schleswig-Holstein
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administrative Court ) of 22 April 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 September 1996 , for a                        Infringement of the Treaty and breach of essential
preliminary ruling in the case of Erika Reimer v. Amt fur                procedural requirements:
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg on the following
questions :
                                                                         — the provision in Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                              concerning the division of Germany is an exception by
                                                                              operation of law from the basic prohibition of aid
( a ) Is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 ) of                        contained in Article 92 ( 1 ), whereas the exceptions
        Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of                           under Article 92 ( 3 ) are optional . In cases of aid falling
        23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for                       under Article 92 ( 2 ), the procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )
        applying the integrated administration and control                    is confined to examining whether the factual criteria are
        system for certain Community aid schemes ( ] ) [as it                 met — namely, in the particular case of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ),
        stood before the entry into force of Commission
                                                                              whether there are disadvantages caused by division and
        Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending                  whether aid is required to compensate for them . The
        Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92], which excludes a                      applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state
        farmer from any area-linked payment whatever where                    reasons laid down in Article 1 90 of the EC Treaty, in that
        the area actually determined for a particular crop is                 the Commission deliberately failed to deal with the
        found to be less than that declared in his aid application
                                                                              provision concerning division, and breach of the
        if the difference is more than 20% , even where the
                                                                              principle that action must not be unreasonable or
        discrepancy is not intentional or the result of serious               disproportionate, in that the Commission adopted the
        negligence but merely of minor negligence, compatible                 contested decision on the basis of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) in
        with the principle of proportionality in Community                    accordance with the discretionary criteria of the
        law ?
                                                                              Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle
                                                                              industry,
( b ) If not, how is the second subparagraph of Article 9 ( 2 )
        of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 [as it stood before the         — the contested decision is contrary to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
        entry into force of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ] to be              the Treaty, relating to the division of Germany. General
        interpreted in such cases ?                                           principles of interpretation apply to that provision.
                                                                              Consequently, alongside the principle that factors giving
(!) OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
                                                                              rise to an exemption are to be construed narrowly,
                                                                              which the Commission has stated in formal terms, the
                                                                              principle that rules of Community law are to be
                                                                              interpreted meaningfully must in particular be observed;


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 June 2002 in Case C-314/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Dangerous substances — Marketing and use — Directives 76/769/EEC, 91/338/EEC and 1999/51/EC — Derogation — Adaptation to technical progress — Legal basis — Limitations on the use of cadmium in Austria and Sweden)

text:
10.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 191/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 18 June 2002                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 June 2002
in Case C-314/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-401/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):
(Dangerous substances — Marketing and use — Directives                      Peter Heinrich Thomsen v Amt für ländliche Räume
76/769/EEC, 91/338/EEC and 1999/51/EC — Derogation                                                         Husum (1)
— Adaptation to technical progress — Legal basis —
 Limitations on the use of cadmium in Austria and Sweden)
                                                                            (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy
                                                                            in the milk and milk products sector — Reference quantities
                          (2002/C 191/03)                                   — Conditions of transfer to lessor in the event of the
                                                                                surrender of leased lands — Notion of ‘producer’)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-314/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
M. A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier and O. Couvert-
                                                                            In Case C-401/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Castéra, assisted by J. Stuyck), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                            EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
Sweden (Agent: L. Nordling): Application for annulment of
                                                                            (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Section 3 of the Annex to Commission Directive 1999/51/EC
                                                                            before that court between Peter Heinrich Thomsen and Amt
of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the
                                                                            für ländliche Räume Husum, joined parties: Helga Henningsen,
fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the
                                                                            Ute Henningsen and Peter Henningsen, on the interpretation
approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative
                                                                            of Articles 7(2) and 9(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the
                                                                            92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in
marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
                                                                            the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), the
preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (OJ 1999 L 142, p. 22),
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                            Chamber, C. Gulmann and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges;
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
V. Skouris and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                            which it has ruled:
given a judgment on 18 June 2002, in which it:
                                                                            On a proper construction of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
1.    Annuls Section 3 of the Annex to Commission Directive 1999/           No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional
      51/EC of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the           levy in the milk and milk products sector, upon expiry of a rural lease
      fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the             of a dairy holding, the transfer in whole or part to the lessor of the
      approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative            reference quantity attached to that holding is possible only where the
      provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on           lessor has the status of a ‘producer’ within the meaning of Article 9(c)
      the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and             of that regulation or, at the date of expiry of the lease, transfers the
      preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium);                                  reference quantity available to a third party who has that status. For
                                                                            the purposes of the attribution of the relevant reference quantities to
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay              lessors under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 3950/92, it is sufficient
      the costs;                                                            that, on the abovementioned date, the lessor can show that he is
                                                                            preparing in a definite manner to take up as soon as possible the
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.                   activity of a ‘producer’ within the meaning of Article 9(c) of that
                                                                            regulation.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by F. Javier Maetzu Nieva against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/97)

text:
No C 166/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
restoration of competition with, for example, animals                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reared in the Netherlands, which, at a weight of 138
kilograms, will be capable of being sold on the French                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
market at a higher price, having regard not only to the                      Case T- 16/97 ( M.
number of additional kilograms but also to the higher
price per kilogram paid for animals with superior physical                   (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
characteristics, for which a premium of ECU 60 is to be
paid .
O OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, pp . 20, 21 and 22 respectively.
( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
( 3 ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97 of 31 January 1997              Action brought on 28 March 1997 by F. Javier Maetzu
      amending Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed             Nieva against the . Commission of the European
      rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and                                         Communities
      veal sector ( OJ No L 31 , 1 . 2 . 1997, p. 62 ).                                                 ( Case T-78/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/41 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Jose Baiges Planas                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 16 others against the Commission of the European                         Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
                               Communities                                   by F. Javier Maetzu Nieva, residing in Brussels,
                                                                             represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                            ( Case T-77/97)                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                              ( 97/C 166/40                                  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                                rejecting the applicant's request that it give
An action against the Commission of the European                                  consideration to the possible application of Article 31
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
by Jose Baiges Planas, residing in Brussels, Viviane Baretti-                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Piazzi, residing at Rhode St Genese ( Belgium ), David                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Broderick, residing in Brussels, Alessandro Buttice,                              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
residing in Brussels, Peter Grasmann, residing in Brussels,
Timothy Hayes, residinig at Wezembeek-Oppem                                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 ( Belgium ), Louis Hersom, residing in Brussels, Owen
Jones, residing in Brussels, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot,                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg), Saturno Mallia,
residing at Overijse ( Belgium ), Fernardo Mazza, residing
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Yasmine Pire, residing in
                                                                             Case T- 16/97 (').
 Brussels, William Richer, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ),
Josefa Rodriguez Portero, residing in Brussels, Robert
                                                                             H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
 Smyth, residing at Sterrebeek ( Belgium), Alain Van
 Hamme, residing at Grimbergen ( Belgium ), and Fionnuala
Walker, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert
 Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de
 Nassau .
                                                                             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Michael A. Köhler
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                             ( Case T- 79/97 )
                                                                                ( 971C 166/42 )
 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request                                     (Language of the case: French)
       to be regraded,
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — annul the Commission's                   decision    rejecting their       Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
        administrative complaint,                                             by Michael A. Köhler, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                              ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .


title: Case T-572/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET — Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO
   (Case T-572/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GOURMET - Prior EU figurative mark ORIGINE GOURMET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95))
   (2017/C 357/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pierre-André Rouard (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Rouard and Aldi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 (Case R 1985/2013-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case C-178/13: Action brought on 11 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/25

         Action brought on 11 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-178/13)
   2013/C 156/40
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities in respect of self-employed drivers or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive;

               —

               order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive expired on 23 March 2009.


title: Case C-73/09 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Hotel Cipriani SpA against the judgment delivered on 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/21

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Hotel Cipriani SpA against the judgment delivered on 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission
   (Case C-73/09 P)
   2009/C 113/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hotel Cipriani SpA (represented by: A. Bianchini, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas), Italian Republic, Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, in consequence:

                           —

                           annul the Commission decision (1) contested at first instance;

                           —

                           in the lesser alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision in so far as the order for recovery provided for therein was interpreted by the Commission as covering also the aid granted on the basis of the de minimis principle and/or annul Article 5 in so far as it provides for interest to be paid at a rate which is higher than that actually paid by the appellant on its own debts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By the first plea in law, Hotel Cipriani alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 87(1) EC, together with the statement of inadequate/contradictory grounds for the judgment under appeal. The laws and regulations found to be incompatible with Article 87 EC in no way distort or threaten to distort competition on the common market in hotel and catering (the very market on which Hotel Cipriani operates), the reasons being that (i) the city of Venice is such a special context that it does not affect the common market in any way, and (ii) the social security relief at issue was granted merely in order to offset the additional costs borne by the undertakings concerned on account of the difficulties inherent in operating on the relevant geographical market in accordance with the same conditions as the other areas of the European common market. The Court of First Instance failed to take proper account of those special circumstances, and simply concluded — without considering this issue in sufficient depth — that the advantages derived by the Venetian undertakings outweighed the disadvantages relating to their location: hence the claim that the grounds for the judgment under appeal are either inadequate or contradictory.

               2.

               By the second plea in law, Hotel Cipriani alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 87(3)(c) EC, together with unsound reasoning in the grounds stated for the judgment under appeal. First the Commission, and then the Court of First Instance, erred in concluding that the regional derogation provided for under Article 87(3)(c) EC did not apply: as is amply attested by the documents produced before the Court of First Instance, the relevant geographical market justified the social security relief granted under the Italian legislation, because it was designed solely to preserve the socio-economic fabric of the city of Venice, and not — as is also clear from the first plea in law — to bring about any anti-competitive distortion of trade on the common market.

               3.

               By the third plea in law, Hotel Cipriani alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 87(3)(d) EC, together with unsound reasoning in the grounds stated for the judgment under appeal. In the case before the Court of First Instance, the social security relief had clearly been granted in order to facilitate the preservation of the undeniable cultural and artistic heritage of the city of Venice, which entails significant costs for the undertakings located in the lagoon areas, which undertakings located elsewhere do not have to bear. In rejecting those arguments — put forward, inter alia, by Hotel Cipriani — the judgment under appeal states, wrongly, that there was insufficient documentary evidence of the reasons for which, item by item, the costs linked to the preservation of the cultural and artistic heritage of Venice were borne by the applicant undertakings. That statement is wrong in a number of respects, and especially because ample documentation had been produced, even before the Commission, substantiating the fact that the entire historic city centre is, as such, subject to indiscriminate restrictions for the preservation of the buildings and architectural heritage.

               4.

               By the fourth plea in law, Hotel Cipriani alleges that the provision made for the compulsory recovery of the amounts accounted for by the aid is unlawful, in that it is contrary to Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC]. The rule laid down in that provision as regards recovery does not apply where, in the circumstances of the case, it would be contrary to a general principle of Community law; such principles were identified before the Court of First Instance, namely, the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and legal certainty.

               5.

               By the fifth plea in law, Hotel Cipriani alleges infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 659/99. In the case of the Commission’s decision of 25 November 1999, the 10-year limitation period specified in Article 15 of Regulation No 659/99 (which clearly applies ratione temporis to the present case) had already expired, with the result that, as regards the effects of the State aid at issue, reference must be made to Law No 171/1973, the ‘Special law for Venice’.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 March 2000 in Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment and compensation — National expert seconded to the Commission — Cost of accommodation — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 176/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
Communities (Agents N. Khan and F. Randolph) — application                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of
7 April 1998, imposing a provisional antidumping duty on                                         of 23 March 2000
imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan             in Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud v Commission
and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19), the Court of First                                    of the European Communities (1)
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made           (Action for annulment and compensation — National expert
an order on 28 January 2000 to the following effect:                      seconded to the Commission — Cost of accommodation —
                                                                          Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Proceedings brought
1. There is no need to adjudicate upon the application in this case.                       out of time — Inadmissibility)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                                           (2000/C 176/39)
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud, a national expert
                                                                          on secondment to the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by H. Masse-
                                                                          Dessen, advocate with a right of audience before the Conseil
                                                                          d’État and the Cour de Cassation, and V. Ecker, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               at the latter’s Chambers, 77 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse
                                                                          Charlotte, v Commission of the European Communities
                       of 30 March 2000                                   (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application,
                                                                          first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 June
in Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo v European Central                  1999 refusing to pay the applicant’s accommodation expenses
                              Bank (1)                                    and, second, for compensation for the loss resulting therefrom
                                                                          — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
(Notice calling for applications for posts in the Legal Service           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 March 2000,
of the European Central Bank — Application for annulment                  the operative part of which is as follows:
            and compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                        (2000/C 176/38)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to pay all the costs.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
In Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo, residing in Madrid,
represented by Antonio Mendez Garcı́a, of the Madrid Bar,
2nd Floor, Calle Bravo Murillo, 28015 Madrid, v European
Central Bank (Agents: Antonio Sàiñz de Vicuña and Chiara
Zilioli) — application for annulment of the notice calling for
applications for posts in the Legal Service of the European               Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação
Central Bank, published in Official Journal C 159 A of 26 May             Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
1998, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                      European Communities
(Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made                                       (Case T-80/00)
an order on 30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                (2000/C 176/40)
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                                 ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
                                                                          whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
                                                                          João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the
                                                                          Lisbon Bar.


title: Case T-849/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/46

      Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB
      (Case T-849/14 P)
      (2015/C 073/57)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, the assertion that the proceedings are pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, and paragraphs 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of the grounds for that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; adopt any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary in relation to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents considered useful for refuting the arguments raised therein.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB.
      The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal.

                  1.

                  The appellant contests the finding of inadmissibility as regards his head of claim concerning the Appeals Committee as follows: he makes reference to that body’s rules of operation, challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s assertion that adequate compensation is provided for the harm suffered by removing the annulled measure from his personal file, and alleges an abuse of that court’s judicial powers.

                  2.

                  The appellant contests as follows the finding of inadmissibility regarding his head of claim concerning the harassment suffered: he challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding that the application for a declaration was inadmissible, makes reference to that court’s failure to give a ruling on that specific application and its refusal to follow the order for reference, states that the new objections proposed by the EIB in the main proceedings are unlawful, and alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal abused its powers by putting itself in the place of his counsel, deciding that it was better not to examine the claim for compensation because it was covered in a more structured way in Case F-52/11.

                  3.

                  As regards his request for a medical report and for other organisational measures, the appellant emphasises that he never waived his requests for measures of inquiry, which were rejected as unnecessary by the Civil Service Tribunal. Accordingly, once the General Court of the European Union established that the dispute had to be settled on the merits, the Civil Service Tribunal was required to examine all requests timeously submitted, establishing which of them were relevant for the purposes of its decision and adopting the related measures of organisation of the procedure.


title: Case C-348/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 30 July 2007 — Turgay Semen v Deutsche Tamoil GmbH

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 30 July 2007 — Turgay Semen v Deutsche Tamoil GmbH
   (Case C-348/07)
   (2007/C 235/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Turgay Semen

      Defendant: Deutsche Tamoil GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents to limit the indemnity to which a commercial agent is entitled by the amount of commission lost as a result of the termination of the agency contract, even though the benefits which the principal continues to derive have to be given a higher monetary value?

               2.

               Are benefits accruing to other companies within the group to which the principal belongs also to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the above calculation?

      (1)  OJ L 382, p. 17.


title: Case T-510/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014  — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group and Sky IP International (EuroSky) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark EuroSky — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group and Sky IP International (EuroSky)
   (Case T-510/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark EuroSky - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Conrad Electronic SE (Hirschau, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor, R. Heine and M. Plesser, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2012 (Case R 1138/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd, on the one hand, and Conrad Electronic SE, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Conrad Electronic SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and by Sky IP International Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-364/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu
   (Case C-364/07)
   (2007/C 247/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Corfu Court of First Instance)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Spyridon Vassilakis and Others

      Defendant: Dimos Kerkyras (Municipality of Corfu)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must a national court — as far as possible — interpret its domestic law in accordance with a directive which was transposed belatedly into its national legal system from

                           (a)

                           the time when the directive entered into force, or

                           (b)

                           the time when the time-limit for transposing it into national law elapsed without any action having been taken, or

                           (c)

                           the time when the national measure implementing it entered into force?

               2.

               Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999) mean that, apart from reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the mere fact that the conclusion of a fixed term contract is required by a provision of law or secondary legislation constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts?

               3.

               May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999), be interpreted to the effect that national provisions which lay down that fixed-term employment contracts or relationships are to be regarded as successive only provided a period of at most three months separates them and, further, that the presumption introduced in favour of the worker that successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships should be recognised as of unlimited duration is necessarily based on the above precondition?

               4.

               Is the prohibition in Article 21 of Law 2190/1994 of the conversion of successive fixed-term contracts of employment into contracts of unlimited duration, those contracts having been concluded for a fixed term in order to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but in fact for the purpose of meeting its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?

               5.

               Is the fact that an independent administrative authority, the Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (ASEP — the Supreme Staff Selection Council) has the final word, under a national provision, enacted in application of the above directive, on whether or not fixed-term contracts can be converted into contracts of indefinite duration compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?


title: Case T-136/99: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 246/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
Decision           contested    Refusal of registration by the             Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of             examiner                                   before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                    Appeal:
Grounds for action:             — Infringement          of    Article      Grounds for action:           — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                    7(1)(b)of Regulation (EC) No                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    40/94                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                — Misapplication of Article                                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
                                    7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                            40/94.
                                    40/94.
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &                        Action brought on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                  pean Communities
                          (Case T-136/99)                                                          (Case T-137/99)
                          (1999/C 246/76)                                                          (1999/C 246/77)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered                      European Communities on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,                Paramo and 33 Others, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and                    Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of Roger Fry, the head of unit DG IX,
1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and                     sent to the applicants on 23 March 1999 and giving them
    order the defendant:                                                       notice of the termination of their contracts as of 30 June
                                                                               1999, and declare void the expiry date of 30 June 1999
    (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark                         fixed for each applicant’s contract;
         application No 400481 in respect of all provisions of
         services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration          — annul, in so far as is necessary, the legal characterisation of
         is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);                the applicants’ contracts, in that each applicant’s contract
         and                                                                   is in fact a renewal for an unlimited period of a contract
                                                                               awarded under Article 2(a) of the conditions of employ-
    (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.                                ment of other servants (hereinafter ‘the conditions’);
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
    procedure before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicants, who have already brought an action for the
Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Comedy’ — Appli-                annulment of the procedures and tests for the internal
                                cation No 404053                           competitions COM/T/A/2/98 and COM/T/B/2/98 (1), now chal-
                                                                           lenge the termination on 30 June 1999 of their contracts as
Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,      temporary staff, notified to them by letter of the head of unit
                                41, 42’                                    DG IX of 23 March 1999.


title: Case T-392/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Axium v Parliament

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/33

         Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Axium v Parliament
   (Case T-392/16)
   (2016/C 326/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Axium (Oberschaeffolsheim, France) (represented by: N. Deleau, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 9 June 2016 by which the European Parliament took the decision to eliminate Axium’s tender from the procurement procedure;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Axium the sum of EUR 4 000 pursuant to Article 133 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the formal illegality of the European Parliament’s Decision D 201714 of 9 June 2016 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure 06D30/2015/M064, concerning the procedure ‘France-Strasbourg: Framework contract for asbestos-removal work in the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg’ (OJ 2015/S 242-438527) and of the decision to award that contract to another tenderer (‘the contested decision’), in so far as the person who signed the letter sent to the applicant, containing the contested decision, did not enjoy any delegation of authority, which is necessary to allow him to engage the responsibility of the contracting authority, namely the European Parliament.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the substantive illegality of the contested decision in so far as the elimination of the applicant’s tender does not comply with Article 158(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and is, therefore, not justified.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by a decision of that court of 4 September 1996 in the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Skatteministeriet (Case C-319/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/ 17
        Republic has in any event failed to fulfil its obligations        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
        under the said Directive;                                         a decision of that court of 4 September 1996 in the case of
                                                                             Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Skatteministeriet
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( Case C-3 19/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/34 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
C-3 1 1 /96 ( 2 ); the time-limit laid down in Article 34 of              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
Directive 93/36/EEC expired on 14 June 1994 .                             [Eastern Regional Court] of 4 September 1996 , which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 1 October 1996 , for a
(') OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken
( 2 ) See Case C-3 11 /96 above .                                         GmbH against Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs )
                                                                          on the following questions :
                                                                          1.   Should the definitions in the Council 's second Directive
                                                                               79/32/EEC of 18 December 1978 on taxes other than
                                                                               turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
Action brought on 25 September 1996 by the Commission                          manufactured tobacco ('), in the version in force on
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             14 May 1990 , be interpreted to the effect that a product
                                  Belgium                                      with the following characteristics should be classified as
                            ( Case C-3 13/96 )                                 cigarettes or as smoking tobacco :
                              ( 96/C 354/33
                                                                               — there is a packet containing 25 g of fine-cut smoking
                                                                                tobacco divided up into 30 rolls of tobacco,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                industrially manufactured , each roll being of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          same size, consistency and uniformity;
25 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Henrik van Lier, Legal                             — each roll of tobacco is 68,6 mm long and consists of
Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national civil servant                        approximately 833 mg of fine-cut smoking tobacco
on secondment to the Legal Service pursuant to the scheme                           wrapped in cellulose , and pressed out into a thin
for the secondment of national experts, acting as Agents ,                          block;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
 Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            — the wrapping is porous, and the roll of tobacco
                                                                                cannot be smoked as it is but must be inserted into a
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                              cigarette-paper tube or wrapped in ordinary
 the Court should :                                                                 cigarette paper, which in both cases can be done
                                                                                without the use of implements ?
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
        administrative measures ( with the exception of those                  If the answer to Question 1 is that the product should be
        applicable to mobile gas cylinders containing butane,                  classified as smoking tobacco, the Court is asked to
        propane or liquid petroleum gas ) necessary in order to                 reply to the following questions :
        comply with Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of
        27 April 1 993 ( 1 ) adapting to technical progress for the       2 . Under Community law is an undertaking entitled to
        18th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC (2 ) on the                     compensation for every loss suffered by it as a
        approximation of the laws , regulations and                             consequence of a Member State's infringement of
        administrative provisions relating to the classification,               Community law, consisting in the fact that an authority
        packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, and by                 responsible for the final administrative decision as to
        failing in any event to communicate such measures, the                  which tax group a tobacco product should fall under has
        Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                 reached a decision which conflicts with Article 3 ( 1 ) of
        under that directive;                                                   Directive 79/32/EEC and, if so , what are the conditions
                                                                                governing such liability ?
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           3 . ( a ) Are the definitions of manufactured tobacco
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 products in Directive 79/32/EEC properly
                                                                                implemented in a Member State if the Minister for
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                         Fiscal Affairs is, by law, empowered to lay down
  C 311 /96 ( 3 ); the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of                           provisions concerning the definitions of tobacco
  Directive 93/21 /EEC expired on 1 July 1994 .                                       products in compliance with the provisions laid
                                                                                down by the European Communities, where no
  (') OJ No L 110 , 4 . 5 . 1993 , p . 20 .                                           legal provisions have been adopted pursuant to the
  ( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                                    Law .
  ( 3 ) See Case C-311 /96 above .
                                                                                If Question 3 ( a ) is answered in the negative , the Court
                                                                                of Justice is asked to reply to the following question :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/ 18           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
3 . ( b ) Does it matter, as regards the answer to Question 2 ,         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          that the definitions in the Tobacco Directive were
          not implemented in the Member State if the
          national authority, in its decision, referred to the          — Misinterpretation of Articles 90 (2 ) and 85 ( 3 ): the fact
          definitions, and the parties to the case before the              that the former provision is applicable does not preclude
          national court are in agreement that the definitions             the applicability of the latter . There is no basis for the
          in the Directive are directly applicable ?                       proposition that the collective activities of public service
                                                                           broadcasting organizations should be considered under
                                                                           Article 90 ( 2 ) rather than under Article 85 ( 3 ) nor for the
                                                                           proposition that, when granting exemption, the
4 . Does it matter, as regards the answer to Question 2 , that
                                                                           Commission could not take into account public interest
     the authorities refused to suspend the operation of the               considerations in the absence of other circumstances .
     authority's decision as requested by the plaintiff with a
                                                                           The judgment confused two separate concepts, that of
     view to limiting its losses ?
                                                                           ' services of general economic interest' within the
                                                                           meaning of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Treaty and that of the
                                                                           'particular public mission' conferred on a broadcasting
(!) OJ No L 10 , 16 . 1 . 1979 , p . 8 .
                                                                           service under the specific rules of its national
                                                                           legislation.
                                                                        — Misapplication of Article 85 and manifest error of
                                                                           assessment in so far as it is held in the judgment that the
                                                                           acquisition of exclusive rights to retransmit
                                                                           international sports events on television might not be
                                                                           necessary and should be the subject of an in-depth
                                                                           investigation on the part of the Commission, whereas it
Appeal brought on 30 September 1996 by the European                        is sufficiently evident from the case-file that exclusive
Broadcasting Union against the judgment delivered on                       rights are the norm .
11 July 1996 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition,
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and                      — Misapplication of Article 85 and manifest error of
T-5 46/93 between Metropole Television SA, Reti Televise                   assessment in so far as the judgment requires the
                                                                           Commission to examine whether the burdens and
Italiane Spa, Sociedade Independente de Comunicagao SA
( SIC ), Gestevision Telecinco and Antena 3 de Television, on              obligations arising for the members of the EBU as a
the one hand, and Commission of the European                               result of their mission of public interest are not
Communities,          European           Broadcasting      Union,          compensated for financially, possibly by State aid within
Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ( RAI ) and Radiotelevision                  the meaning of Articles 92 and 93 . No such requirement
                         espanola ( RTVE )                                 follows from the wording of Article 85 ( 3 ). There is no
                                                                           connection between the manner in which a Member
                       ( Case C-320/96 P )                                 State proposes to organize the funding of a broadcaster
                           ( 96/C 354/35 )                                 and the legality of any cooperation between that
                                                                           broadcaster and other broadcasters with a view to
                                                                           presenting a joint offering in terms of the retransmission
                                                                           of sports events .
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                        — Manifest error of assessment and reasoning: the
Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and T-546/93
                                                                           judgment is defective in so far as it fails to take account
between Metropole Television SA, Reti Televise Italiane
                                                                           of an essential aspect. The Court of First Instance went
SpA, Sociedade Independente de Comunicagao SA ( SIC ),                     off on the wrong track: the exemption decision relates to
Gestevision Telecinco and Antena 3 de Television, on the
                                                                           the joint offering in the name of the members of the EBU
one hand, and Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           and not to the manner in which an organization becomes
European Broadcasting Union, Radiotelevisione Italiana
                                                                           a member of the EBU. The exemption decision was
SpA ( RAI ) and Radiotelevision espanola ( RTVE ), was                     preceded by years of negotiations between the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Commission and the EBU on the conditions on which
Communities on 30 Septemnber 1996 by the European
                                                                           the EBU was to grant sublicences to any broadcaster in
Broadcasting Union ( EBU ), represented by Ian S. Forrester
                                                                           Europe, including the respondents . The judgment has
QC, of the Scottish Bar, and Alasdair R. M. Bell, solicitor                regard only to the criteria for EBU membership and does
( Scotland ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           not take account of the impact in favour of competition
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
                                                                           of the system of sublicences .
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First            — Manifest error of assessment and misapplication of
Instance of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases T-528/93 ,                        Article 85 in that the Court of First Instance wrongly
T-542/93 , T-543/93 and T-546/93 ( ] ) should be set aside .               concludes that national legislative provisions relating to


title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Nuova Sidercamuna SpA (in liquidation) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-130/97)

text:
No C 199/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Coca-Cola                              Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Nuova Sidercamuna
Enterprises Inc. against the Commission of the European                   SpA ( in liquidation) against the Commission of the
                               Communities                                                     European Communities
                            ( Case T-127/97)                                                      ( Case T-130/97)
                              ( 97/C 199/ 81 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/ 82 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc ., represented by Michael                    by Nuova Sidercamuna SpA ( in liquidation ), represented
Reynolds, Allen & Overy, with an address for service in                   by Enrico Adriano Raffaelli , of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Zeyen Beghin Feider, 4                      Bael, of the Brussels Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the
Rue de l'Avenir.
                                                                          Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Freddy Brausch of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                          Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Commission Decision of 22 January                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
     1997 is void insofar as it finds that:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 4288 def. of
     ( a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of                              18 December 1996 (') concerning aid for closures
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;                        envisaged by Italy as part of the restructuring of its
                                                                                private steel industry,
     ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and
                                                                          — order the Commission, pursuant to the provision made
                                                                                for unsuccessful pleadings, to pay the costs of the
     ( c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                     present proceedings,
            colas in Great Britain,
                                                                          — adopt all other measures for the protection of the
— alternatively, declare that the following decisions :                         applicant's interests required by the principles of law
                                                                                or equity.
      (a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and              The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as
                                                                           that contested in      Case T-122/97 Ferriera     Lamifer v.
      (c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                Commission ( 2).
            colas in Great Britain;
                                                                           The applicant's first plea is that the contested decision is
      contained in the Commission Decision of 22 January                   the result of a misassessment of the relevant legislation
       1997 are void,                                                      and contradictory reasoning on the part of the
                                                                           Commission . Since the Community legislation on the
                                                                           restructuring of the steel industry, including the Aid
 — order the Commission to pay CCE's costs .
                                                                           Code ( 3 ), aims to reduce market overcapacity, the
                                                                           Commission has infringed Article 4 of the Aid Code by
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       declaring that the measures in favour of the applicant
                                                                           were incompatible with the common market even though
                                                                           they would have brought about the permanent cessation
 The Grounds and main arguments are similar to those                        of the production concerned, and its approach is obviously
 submitted in Case T-125/97 Coca-Cola Company/                             contradictory. The applicant also argues that the
 Commission (').                                                            Commission acted contrary to the principle of
                                                                            effectiveness in assessing the compatibility of the Italian
                                                                            measures on the basis of a formal criterion — such as the
 (') See p . 32 of this Official Journal .
                                                                            regularity of production — rather than in the light of the
                                                                            primary objective of Community steel policy, that is, the
                                                                            shedding of production capacity.
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/35
In its second plea, the applicant maintains that the                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission misused its powers and manifestly erred in its
interpretation of the condition laid down by the second
indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Decision 3855/91 /ECSC. The                — annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of
mere fact that the Commission based its entire assessment                   the European Union inasmuch as it failed to pay the
on that interpretation renders all its evaluations of the                   applicant the daily subsistence allowance provided for
                                                                            in Article 10 (2 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation
separate arguments submitted by the applicant and by the
Italian authorities inconsistent with the provisions of the                 for the entire period of his probation plus one month ,
Aid Code .
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the daily
                                                                            subsistence allowance for the entire period of his
In its third plea, the applicant argues that the decision                   probation plus one month, together with default
infringes Community law and in particular the principle of                  interest of 8 % per annum from the date on which it
non-discrimination. The Commission treated comparable                       became payable, less the amount of Bfrs 101 880
situations dissimilarly and non-comparable situations                       which was paid by the defendant to the applicant as
similarly. Furthermore, the criteria which the Commission                   the daily subsistence allowance for the first 120 days
applied to the Italian steel undertakings were more                         of the applicant's probationary period, and
restrictive than those applied to undertakings in other
Member States . By not making use of the powers
                                                                        — order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
conferred on it by Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty to                         defendant.
approve measures for closures, the Commission also
discriminated against the applicant as compared with
companies in respect of which it adopted such an                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
approach.
                                                                        The applicant states that, having successfully passed an
                                                                        internal competition in the Committee of the Regions, he
Lastly, the applicant maintains that the position adopted
                                                                        was appointed as a probationary official from 16 April
by the Commission in the contested decision is in open                  1996, and received a daily subsistence allowance under
contrast to that adopted in its decision of 12 December
                                                                        Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations . Payment
1994, confirming that the aid measures notified by the
                                                                        of this allowance was limited to the first 120 days of his
Italian Republic were compatible with the common
                                                                        probationary period.
market. The Commission thereby breached the principles
of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
expectations, and acted in contradiction of a measure                   The applicant submits that in accordance with
which the Commission itself had previously adopted.                     Article 10 (2 ) ( b ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, he
                                                                        is entitled, as a probationary official, to receive the daily
                                                                        subsistence allowance for the entire period of his
(') OJ 1997 L 102, 19 . 4 . 1997.
(2 ) See p. 30 of this Official Journal .                               probation, plus one month.
(') Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November 1991
     establishing Community rules for aid to the steel industry ( OJ    The applicant contends on this point that the correct
     No L 362 , 21 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
                                                                        interpretation of Article 10 ( 2 ) of Annex VII is that any
                                                                        probationary official, whether entitled to the household
                                                                        allowance or not, is entitled to the payment of the daily
                                                                        subsistence allowance throughout the period of probation
                                                                        plus one month . He maintains that this interpretation has
                                                                        been confirmed by the decisions of the European Court of
                                                                        First Instance which has held that, for a probationary
Action brought on 24 April 1997 by Michael Collins                      official, the purpose of the daily subsistence allowance is
against the Committee of the Regions of the European                    to compensate that official for the inconvenience resulting
                                  Union                                 from the precarious nature of the employment
                           ( Case T-132/97                              relationship, precariousness that continues throughout the
                                                                        probationary period.
                             ( 97/C 199/83 )
                                                                        The applicant considers that the interpretation of the
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Court as to the purpose of the daily subsistence allowance
                                                                        makes no connection whatsoever between a probationary
                                                                        official 's entitlement to this allowance and the entitlement
                                                                        of the same official to receive the household allowance .
An action against the Committee of the Regions of the                   He contends therefore that the Committee, in breach of
European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 1997                   his rights under the Staff Regulations, has restrictively and
                                                                        erroneously interpreted and applied Article 10 ( 2 ) of
by Michael Collins, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and               Annex VII .
Jonathan Branton, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 12,
Boulevard de la Foire .


title: Case T-675/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014  — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/24

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
   (Case T-675/14)
   2014/C 388/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 9 July 2014 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Financial Perspectives and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as they concern the Kingdom of Spain; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               By the first plea, it is alleged that the imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 2 7 31  208,07 and the method of calculation used were contrary to Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), to the guidelines set out in Commission document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section), and to Commission document AGRI/2005/64043 (Commission Communication on how the Commission intends in the context of the EAGGF-Guarantee clearance procedure to handle shortcomings in the context of cross-compliance control systems implemented by Member States) in so far as it is inappropriate to apply a flat-rate assessment, since the applicant had provided a specific evaluation of the actual risks for the fund. The implementing measures adopted by the Commission were not only incorrect, but also disproportionate and unjustified.

               2.

               By the second plea, it is alleged that the addition of a specific correction in the amount of EUR 1 91  873,55 to the general flat-rate correction of 2 %, and the method of calculation, are contrary to Article 31(2) of the Regulation No 1290/2005 and to the Commission documents on the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections, because it is not appropriate to use two methods of calculation at the same time for the same infringement. To proceed in that way is not only legally incoherent but also disproportionate and unjustified.

               3.

               By the third plea in law, it is alleged that the correction imposed for the 2010 application year, the 2011 financial year, infringes Article 31(4) of Regulation No 1290/2005; that it implies failure to observe the principle of sincere cooperation and infringes the rights of the defence, in so far as the defendant has unduly extended the financial correction to cover a period subsequent to the 24 months preceding the Communication, even though the shortcomings had already been rectified.


title: Case T-150/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/18

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-150/15)
   (2015/C 190/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant 39  316,54 EUR;

               —

               condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 23 December 2005 on the project for European Action for Global Life science — Health Programme with reference LSSP-CT-2005-512135 (‘the Contract’), and claims for payment of the final amount of 39  316,54 EUR.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the debit note issued by the European Commission is based in the conclusions of the final audit report but that the appraisal carried out by the European Commission’s auditors for issuing this report was incorrect with respect to several costs, namely personnel costs and costs related to certain events. Therefore, the European Commission issued a debit note based on incorrect assumptions and failed to prove facts to support its allegations, resulting in an infringement of article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code and, consequently, in a contractual infraction.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as of Article 1347 of the Belgian Civil Code as the European Commission unjustly concluded that costs related to the work of certain members of the personnel were ineligible because those members did not have a valid employment contract with the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward, amongst others, that it did not get the chance to defend itself by explaining to the European Commission any misunderstanding or minor mistake incurred by it in the performance of the Contract, that the enormous financial gap between the first draft audit report and the final audit report demonstrates a clear lack of correctness and prudency and that the several miscalculations and inaccuracies in figures throughout the whole final audit report have caused the applicant a struggle to properly understand the accusations made by the European Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission at refusing to reimburse some costs.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the European Commission accepted the fact that the applicant was assisted by another legal entity and therefore created the legal expectation that the costs derived from this relationship would be perfectly eligible.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that according to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, should uncertainty arise, an agreement is to be interpreted against he who stipulated it and in favor of he who contracted the obligation. The contractual rules applicable to FP6 result from ‘standard’ clauses established by the European Commission, to which the applicant had no other possibility but to adhere, making it the party who contracted the obligation. This situation, together with the fact that they pose evident problems of interpretation, as illustrated by the high numbers of appeals before the General Court questioning them, justifies that the uncertainty must benefit the applicant. The interpretation rule of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code makes it possible for the judge to construe the badly drafted or ambiguous provisions against their author, being the Commission.