title: Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-32/99)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/13
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
The Commission submits that, as far as it is aware,                      76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
Ireland continues in its infringement of Article 30 of the               Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the French
EC Treaty by:                                                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under EC
                                                                         Treaty; and
Ð failing to adopt regulations amending the present
    standards of fineness regulations so as to recognise            2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    those standards of fineness included in the proposed
    directive on the approximation of laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to articles of precious metal;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
                                                                    those put forward in Case C-26/1999 (2); the period laid
                                                                    down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.
Ð failing to adopt a proposed amendment to Section 9 of
    the Hallmarking Act 1981 so as to accept articles
                                                                    (1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
    struck with the sponsor's mark of another Member
                                                                    (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
    State where the legislation of that Member State
    authorises the marketing of the article and upon proof
    supplied by the Member State that the sponsor's mark
    is, in fact, registered in that Member State;
Ð failing to amend Section 2 of the Hallmarking Act
    1981 so as to permit the recognition of hallmarks               Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
    struck in other Member States;                                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Ð maintaining differences between approved hallmarks                                         (Case C-32/99)
    struck or articles manufactured in Ireland and those                                     (1999/C 86/26)
    hallmarks of the same type struck on imported
    articles.
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities, represented by Richard B.
                                                                    Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil servant on secondment to
  the European Communities against the French Republic              its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                         (Case C-31/99)
                                                                    la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 86/25)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before            that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a            1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                     Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                         76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Grand
                                                                         Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         obligations under EC Treaty; and
that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                          under these Directives, and
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those put forward in Case C-26/99 (2); the period laid
down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.                        Ð order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
                                                                     down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1992
Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission                 at the latest without the United Kingdom having enacted
of the European Communities against the United                       the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                             Kingdom                                 referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                         (Case C-39/99)
                         (1999/C 86/27)                              (1 ) OJ L 18, 24.1.1980, p. 26.
                                                                     (2 ) OJ L 117, 4.5.1983, p. 15.
                                                                     (3 ) OJ L 363, 13.12.1989, p. 27.
                                                                     (4 ) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the                               Removal from the register of Case C-321/98 (1)
Commission, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 86/28)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:          removal from the register of Case C-321/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. French Republic.
     Ð Council Directive 80/51/EEC (1) of 20 December
         1979 on the limitation of noise emissions from              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
         subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 83/206/EEC (2) of 21 April 1983
         amending Directive 80/51/EEC on the limitation of
         noise emissions from subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 89/629/EEC (3) of 4 December                         Removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (1)
         1989 on the limitation of noise emissions from                                       (1999/C 86/29)
         civil subsonic jet aeroplanes;
     Ð Council Directive 92/14/EEC (4) of 2 March 1992               By order of 14 January 1999 the President of the Court of
         on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
         covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of                  removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (reference for a
         Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil           preliminary ruling from Sù- og Handelsretten): Calvin
         Aviation, second edition (1988)                             Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland Aalborg A/S and
                                                                     Others.
     with respect to the territory of Gibraltar, or in any
     event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the          (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.


title: Case C-242/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest (Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Group of companies in which staff employed by an employer company and assigned on a permanent basis to an operating company — Transfer of an operating company)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest
   (Case C-242/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Group of companies in which staff employed by an ‘employer’ company and assigned on a permanent basis to an ‘operating’ company - Transfer of an operating company)
   2010/C 346/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Albron Catering BV

      Defendant: FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Company with all the personnel of a group of companies which makes it available to operating companies of the group according to their needs — Transfer of the activity of an operating company outside the group — Classification

      Operative part of the judgment

   In the event of a transfer within the meaning of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, of an undertaking belonging to a group to an undertaking outside that group, it is also possible to regard as a ‘transferor’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of that directive, the group company to which the employees were assigned on a permanent basis without however being linked to the latter by a contract of employment, even though there exists within that group an undertaking with which the employees concerned were linked by such a contract of employment.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 21.


title: Case T-14/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/20

         Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-14/07)
   (2007/C 69/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5163 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of the financial assistance of the ERDF in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative KMU (ERDF No 94.02.10.029) in so far as the reduction exceeds the ERDF assistance not claimed;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision reduces the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community Initiative.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95) 1427 of 11 July 1995.
   Moreover, it submits that there is an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduction are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change of the program.
   Even if there were a significant change of the program, the applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).
   On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satisfied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

      (1)  CounciL Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 26 March 1997, in the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: First City Trading Ltd and another (Case C-263/97)

text:
C 295/ 14                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27 . 9 . 97
2 . ( a ) Does the reasoning set out in paragraphs 21 to 31                 where by reason of force majeure goods in transit in
           of the judgment in Case C-165/91 Van Munster v.                  the course of export to third countries are repatriated
           Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen in respect of                        to the Member State of export, or are they limited to
           Question 2 comprehend the phrase ' unforeseen                    those cases where the goods were imported into a
           adverse effects of the lack of coordination between              different third country to that which was originally
           social security schemes'?                                        declared by the exporter to the competent authority ?
     ( b ) In the light of paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of that
           judgment, is point 2 of the operative part of that           2.  In circumstances where :
           judgment to be interpreted as meaning that, where
           it is impossible to interpret an applicable provision
           of national law in such a way as to eliminate the                ( a ) by Commission Decision 96/239/EC ( 2 ) of
           adverse effects of its application in a specific                        27 March 1996 exports of beef from the United
           situation on free movement of workers, the                              Kingdom to third countries were prohibited;
           national court must apply that rule in full , or that
           the national court must disapply that rule of
           national law ?
                                                                            ( b ) bans on the importation of beef from the United
                                                                                Kingdom were also imposed by a number of third
                                                                                countries ;
3 . In the light of point 2 of the operative part of the
     judgment in Van Munster v. Rijksdienst voor
     Pensioenen and the case-law of the Court of Justice, is                ( c ) exporters of beef were at the time of the said
     it compatible with Community law, more particularly                           Decision in the process of carrying goods to third
     Article 5 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty, to take the view                         countries;
     that the national court may not disapply express,
     binding provisions of national law in order to
     eliminate the adverse effects :
                                                                            ( d ) the said exporters were forced to repatriate the
                                                                                beef to the United Kingdom;
     — of the application of the rule of national law to
           migrant workers who have exercised their right to
           free movement,                                                    ( e ) the exporters received advance-paid export refunds
                                                                                in accordance with Commission Regulations ( EEC )
                                                                                No 565/80 ( 3 ) and ( EEC ) No 3665/87 as amended
     — of the lack of coordination between social security                         in respect of the export transactions in issue; and
           schemes of different Member States ?
                                                                             ( f) the exporters suffered losses as a result of not
                                                                                being able to sell the beef on the export markets in
                                                                                question;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
                                                                             are the exporters entitled to retain all or part of the
Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                     export refund by reason of the general principles of
26 March 1997, in the case of The Queen against
                                                                             Community law and in particular force majeure,
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
                                                                             legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity ?
                 First City Trading Ltd and another
                           ( Case C-263/97
                             ( 97/C 295/22 )                            3 . If answer to Question 2 is that the exporter is entitled
                                                                             to retain in principle some or all of the export refund
                                                                             in question are the exporters bound to give credit for
                                                                             any revenues derived from the disposal of the beef in
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             the United Kingdom ( for example where the original
 European Communities by an order of the Divisional                          vendor of the beef to the exporter was bound to
 Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 March 1997, which                       repossess the beef under a retention of title clause in
 was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a                   the original contract of sale and where the vendor
 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                              repaid all or a portion of the original purchase price )?
 Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
 First City Trading Ltd and another, on the following
 questions :
                                                                        4.    Are either or both of Commission Decision 96/239/EC
                                                                              or Regulation ( EC ) No 773/96 ( 4 ) unlawful to the
 1 . Do Articles 23 and 33 of Commission Regulation                           extent that they do not provide for exporters in the
      No 3665/87/EEC H as amended apply to the case                           circumstances referred to in Question 2 above being
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/ 15
        entitled to retain export refunds, applicable to the                    produkten against the decision of 2 July 1992 ( SG(92 )
        exports in question or any portion thereof?                             D/8782 ) inadmissibile and in any event dismiss them,
                                                                                and
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 of 27 November
       1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
      of the system of export refunds on agricultural products ( OJ         — order Florimex BV and Vereniging van Grooth
      L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 ).                                           andelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten jointly and
( 2 ) Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on                         severally to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings
      emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform                   in accordance with Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of
      encephalopathy ( OJ L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996, p. 17).                         Procedure .
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the
      advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural
      products ( OJ L 62 , 7. 3 . 1980, p. 5 ).                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
C ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 773 /96 of 26 April 1996
      laying down special measures derogating from Regulations
      ( EEC ) No 3665/87, ( EEC ) No 3719/88 and ( EEC ) No 1964/
                                                                            — The Court of First Instance wrongly applied very
      82 in the beef and veal sector ( OJ L 104 , 27 . 4 . 1996 , p. 19 ).
                                                                                stringent requirements as to the statement of the
                                                                                reasons on which the decision of 2 July 1992, in
                                                                                which the Commission rejected the complaints of
                                                                                Florimex and Others, was based and, when assessing
                                                                                whether those requirements were satisfied, undertook
                                                                                a detailed examination of the complainants'
Appeal brought on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative                               arguments . The Court thereby demonstrated an
society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA                          incorrect legal view of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1997 by the                            applied an incorrect standard of assessment and
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                          wrongly acted in the Commission 's stead .
Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 between, on the one
hand, Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren                        — In paragraphs 137 and 138 the Court of First Instance
in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and, on the other hand, the
                                                                                erred in law by holding that it was not called upon to
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                                adjudicate on the arguments put forward by the VBA
the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen                             concerning the non-application of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
                          Aalsmeer' (VBA ) BA
                                                                                Treaty or the possible application of the second
                           ( Case C-265 /97 P )                                 sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 , but
                               ( 97/C 295/23
                                                                                only on the legality of the conclusion reached by the
                                                                                Commission in the contested decision of 2 July 1992
                                                                                that the user fee falls within the first sentence of
                                                                                Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 : the Commission,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                              and the Court of Justice in its case-law, at that time
 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European                            still considered the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
 Communities in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92
                                                                                Regulation No 26 as an application ( particularization )
 between, on the one hand, Florimex BV and Vereniging                           of the first sentence and specifically of the second
 van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten and, on
                                                                                exception therein ( justification on the basis of a
 the other hand, the Commission of the European                                 national market organization was irrelevant ). It is thus
 Communities, supported by the cooperative society
                                                                                self-evident that the assessment framework taken by
 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA ) BA, was                           the Commission is the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Regulation No 26 . That does not imply that the
 Communities on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative society                         Commission did not also take into consideration the
 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' ( VBA ) BA,
                                                                                conditions for — as later happened — the third
 represented by G. van der Wal , with an address for service                    exception , or that the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 )
 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                                of Regulation No 26 can be disregarded .
 Grand-Rue .
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                                   It cannot be the case that an agricultural cooperative
                                                                                such as the VBA, which accepts members in ( the
                                                                                border areas of) other Member States, cannot rely on
 — declare the VBA's appeal against the judgment of the                          the second sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation
        Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      No 26 .
        of 14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92
        admissible,
                                                                            — The Court of First Instance wrongly refused or in any
                                                                                event,   without   stating its reasons,   neglected to
 — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                         consider to what extent the action should be dismissed
         of the European Communities of 14 May 1997 in                           on the basis of — in short — the ' rule of reason '. The
        Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92 and, ruling afresh,                    Court should have examined whether the judgment in
         declare the actions brought by Florimex BV and                          Case C-250/90 (') is relevant in this case and leads to
         Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerij                        a different decision .


title: Case C-82/17 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2017 by TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-177/13: TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2017 by TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-177/13: TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV v Commission
   (Case C-82/17 P)
   (2017/C 129/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV, Sambucus eV (represented by: K. Smith QC, J. Stevenson, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Food Safety Authority, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Court order;

               —

               re-make the judgment granting the annulment of the Commission decisions in the manner sought before the General Court or, in the alternative, remit the case back to the General Court for a full re-hearing. The decision on this issue turns on which ground(s) of appeal are successful;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs; and

               —

               order any other measure deemed appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants invite the Court to set aside or annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, Testbiotech and Others v Commission (T-177/13, ECLI:EU:T:2016:736) (‘the Judgment’) served on the Appellants on 19 December 2016. In the Judgment, the General Court dismissed the Appellants’ action seeking the annulment of the European Commission’s three substantively identical decisions addressed to the Appellants. Those decisions determined, in effect, that their complaints about Decision 2012/347 (1) granting a market authorisation under Regulation 1829/2003 (2) on genetically modified food and feed (‘GM Regulation’) to Monsanto Europe SA for its genetically modified soybean ‘MON 87701 x MON 89788’ (‘the Soybean’) were not well-founded. These decisions will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Commission Decisions’.
   In summary, in rejecting the Appellants’ challenges to the Commission Decisions, the General Court erred in law by:

               a)

               Declaring inadmissible certain parts of the Appellants’ applications for annulment on the basis that the requests for reconsideration submitted pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (3) did not contain all of the precise detail or reasons put forward in support of the grounds of appeal before the General Court and/or that other procedural requirements were not met.

               b)

               Applying an incorrect and impossible burden of proof on Non-Governmental Organisations (‘NGOs’) bringing challenges under Articles 10 and 12 of the Aarhus Regulation on behalf of the environment.

               c)

               Failing to recognise that the Guidance issued by EFSA in accordance with its legal obligations give rise to a legitimate expectation that it will be complied with.

               d)

               Determining that the two-stage safety assessment required by the GM Regulation (and EFSA’s Guidance) did not need to be complied with. Instead, the first stage only, the comparison of the genetically modified crop and its comparators, could be (and was in this case) sufficient to satisfy the obligations set out by the GM Regulation.

               e)

               Relying upon Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (4) (‘the Pesticide Regulation’) in dismissing certain elements of the Appellants’ challenge to the failure to investigate adequately the potential toxicity of the Soybean and to monitor post authorisation the impact of the Soybean.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision of 28 June 2012 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 (MON-87701-2 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (PB 2012, L 171, p. 13).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003, L 268, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2005, L 70, p. 1).


title: Case T-182/00: Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against the European Parliament

text:
7.10.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The applicant is a licensee and local representative for a
pharmaceutical product marketed under the name OPTRUMA.                                          (Case T-182/00)
This product was registered under the centralised Community
authorisation procedure, as laid down by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2309/93 (1).                                                                           (2000/C 285/25)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision                               (Language of the case: Italian)
refusing the use of its company logo in the so-called ‘blue box’
on the outer packaging of the product.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
This ‘blue box’ is a boxed area provided to accommodate the
                                                                        on 11 July 2000 by Marco Pannella, represented by Piero
specific information Member States may require to appear on             A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
the package as laid down by Article 5 (2) of Directive
                                                                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
92/27/EEC (2).
                                                                        Albert 1er.
The annulment is sought on the following grounds:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     lack of any legal basis in the applicable Community
                                                                        —     declare the present action admissible;
      regulations to adopt the contested decision;
                                                                        —     annul Decision No 303663 of the College of Quaestors
—     illegal interference with the applicant’s right of property
                                                                              of 17 April 2000;
      to the extent that the logo constitutes a property right
      protected under the Treaty;
                                                                        —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
—     frustration of the legitimate expectation which the Com-          Pleas in law and main arguments
      mission caused the applicant to entertain;
                                                                        The present action seeks annulment of Decision No 303663
—     lack of an appropriate statement of reasons;                      of the College of Quaestors of the European Parliament of
                                                                        17 April 2000 rejecting the applicant’s request, submitted
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality and of           pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Rules governing the payment
      the applicant’s right to freely exercise its economic             of expenses and allowances to Members, for his non-attend-
      activities;                                                       ance at the January 2000 session of the Parliament to be
                                                                        excused. The reason given for that request was that the
—     failure to comply with the time-limit of 90 days pre-             applicant had to attend the hearing in criminal proceedings
      scribed by Article 10 (3) of Directive 92/27/EEC.                 brought against him.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Guidelines on the           In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
packaging information, which the Commission issued to
clarify the labelling requirements have no legal force. However,        —     incorrect interpretation of the above-mentioned
should these Guidelines nevertheless be considered binding, it                Article 28(2), inasmuch as the rationale for that provision
invokes a plea of illegality pursuant to Article 241 EC as the                is to prevent Members from being penalised where they
Commission had no competence to adopt a rule infringing                       are unable to attend sessions of the Parliament for reasons
fundamental property rights.                                                  beyond their control. More particularly, the applicant
                                                                              maintains that the term ‘serious family circumstances’ is
                                                                              capable of covering all situations in which the person
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying                concerned cannot reasonably be expected to resume his
    down Community procedures for the authorisation and super-                normal activities in the usual way;
    vision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and
    establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
    Products, OJ 1993 L 214 , p. 1.                                     —     infringement of his right to a fair hearing, which should
(2) Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling             be understood as meaning that a person involved in
    of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. OJ           proceedings is entitled to participate personally in those
    1992 L 113, p. 8.                                                         proceedings.


title: Case C-410/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/15/EC — Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-410/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/15/EC - Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 199/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as agents)

      Defendant(s): Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro agents)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with 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 (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed all the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-456/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/14

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-456/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-438/12 to T-441/12 and, in particular, in Case T-439/12, Trefilerías Quijano v European Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in declaring inadmissible the plea in law relating to the infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the second request for inability to pay and, consequently, the admissibility of the action.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in evaluating the evidence or clearly distorting the evidence, failing to carry out a full review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, infringing the right to effective judicial protection and failing to state reasons.


title: Case T-279/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Ezz and Others/Council

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/51

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Ezz and Others/Council
   (Case T-279/13)
   2013/C 207/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London, United Kingdom), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J. Lewis, Queen's Counsel, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt amending Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54) and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) as continued by decision of the Council dated 21 March 2013, insofar as they apply to the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that (a) Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP lacked a proper legal base since it did not satisfy the requirement of Article 29 TEU; and (b) Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 could not be continued since it did not satisfy the requirements of its purported legal base: Article 215(2) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the criterion for adopting restrictive measures as set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, is not fulfilled. In addition, it is being alleged that the defendant’s justification for the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicants is entirely vague, non-specific, unsubstantiated, unjustified, and insufficient to justify the application of such measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has violated the applicants' rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection as (a) the restrictive measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicants the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence; (b) the reasons given contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of judicial proceedings; and (c) the defendant has not given sufficient information to enable the applicants effectively to make known their views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council's decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicants sufficient reasons for their inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicants were responsible for misappropriating Egyptian State funds.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' right to property and to reputation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that defendant's inclusion of the applicants in the list of persons against whom restrictive measures will apply is based on a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-342/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy policy — Energy saving — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-342/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy policy - Energy saving - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 64/18)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M.B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-63/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt)
   (Case T-63/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 048/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2560/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-430/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipiresion Mikhanografisis, Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras (Directive 2001/34/EC — Article 21 — Admission of securities to official stock exchange listing — Listing particulars (prospectus) — Publication of inaccurate information — Persons responsible — Members of the board of directors)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipiresion Mikhanografisis, Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras
   (Case C-430/05) (1)

   (Directive 2001/34/EC - Article 21 - Admission of securities to official stock exchange listing - Listing particulars (prospectus) - Publication of inaccurate information - Persons responsible - Members of the board of directors)
   (2007/C 199/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipiresion Mikhanografisis, Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas

      Defendant: Epitropi Kefalaiagoras (Capital Market Commission)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1) — Publication of listing particulars containing inaccurate and misleading information liable to deceive investors
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national legislature from laying down, for cases where the information recorded in listing particulars published with a view to admitting securities to official stock exchange listing proves to be inaccurate or misleading, administrative penalties imposable not only upon the persons expressly mentioned in those particulars as responsible but also upon the issuer of the securities and, indiscriminately, upon the members of the issuer's board of directors, regardless of whether the board members have been identified as responsible in the listing particulars.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1999 in Case C-189/97: European Parliament v Council of the European Union (EC/Mauritania fisheries agreement - Agreements with important budgetary implications for the Community)

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     of the European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacqué, John Carbery
                                                                           and Félix van Craeyenest), supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   (Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) — application for the
                                                                           annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 408/97 of 24 Febru-
                           of 8 July 1999                                  ary 1997 on the conclusion of an Agreement on cooperation
                                                                           in the sea fisheries sector between the European Community
in Case C-5/93 P: DSM NV v Commission of the European                      and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and laying down
                          Communities (1)                                  provisions for its implementation (OJ 1997 L 62, p. 1) —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
    (Appeal — Application for revision — Admissibility)                    P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and
                                                                           P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                          (1999/C 333/12)                                  C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                           L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                           Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;
In Case C-5/93 P: DSM NV, whose registered office is in                    3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (First Chamber) of 4 November 1992 in Case T-
8/89 REV DSM v Commission [1992] ECR II-2399, seeking to
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-                                           of 8 July 1999
trar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which               in Case C-254/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
it:                                                                        the Conseil d’État): Société Baxter and Others v Premier
                                                                                Ministre and Others (1)
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           (Internal taxation — Tax deduction — Expenditure on
2. Orders DSM NV to pay the costs.
                                                                                research — Proprietary medicinal products)
(1) OJ No C 76 of 18.3.1993.                                                                         (1999/C 333/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                           of 8 July 1999                                  In Case C-254/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État
in Case C-189/97: European Parliament v Council of the                     (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                        European Union (1)                                 before that court between Société Baxter, B. Braun Médical SA,
                                                                           Société Fresenius France, Laboratoires Bristol-Myers-Squibb
(EC/Mauritania fisheries agreement — Agreements with                       SA and Premier Ministre, Ministère du Travail et des Affaires
    important budgetary implications for the Community)                    Sociales, Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministère de
                                                                           l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation — on the
                          (1999/C 333/13)                                  interpretation of Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 43 EC), 58 of the EC Treaty (now
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Article 48 EC), 92 and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Articles 87 EC and 90 EC) — the Court, compo-
                                                                           sed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                           L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
In Case C-189/97: European Parliament (Agents: Gregorio                    Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Garzón Clariana, Christian Pennera and Hans Krück) v Council              judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-297/10: Action brought on 8 July 2010 — DBV v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/37

         Action brought on 8 July 2010 — DBV v Commission
   (Case T-297/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Rudolph and A. Günther, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare void Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant is challenging Regulation (EU) No 404/2010, (1) by which the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China.
   As a basis for its action, the applicant first submits that there has been a breach of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence in that, in the course of the procedure prior to adoption of the contested regulation, the applicant was not informed or given a hearing, with the result that it had no opportunity to defend its interests and set out its views.
   Second, the applicant contends that there was a defective determination of the facts and an abuse of discretionary power. It submits in this regard that the background to the case was misrepresented and incorrectly investigated. The applicant argues that no account was taken of, for instance, the higher exchange rate of the dollar in the interim or of the increased prices of crude oil. The applicant further submits, in connection with its allegation of abuse of discretionary power, that the Commission failed to have regard for the principle of proportionality. An abuse of discretionary power and breach of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) also lie, in the applicant’s view, inter alia in the fact that no suitable information was collected in the course of the investigations to establish differentiated duties.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 64).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2000 in Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto v Council of the European Union (Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59 of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the event of absence on account of sickness)

text:
C 122/32                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(OJ 1997 L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                         of 22 February 2000
President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February             in Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto v Council of the
2000, in which it:                                                                                European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.                               (Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                   event of absence on account of sickness)
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/45)
3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
                                                                            In Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto, an official of
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J.-N. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                            SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: P. Borges and M. Bauer) — application for annulment
                                                                            of the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 refusing regis-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            tration of the applicant’s medical certificate and declaring her
                                                                            absence during the period from 9 to 22 February 1998
                        of 23 February 2000                                 inclusive to be irregular — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
in Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro v Commission of the                      P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for
                     European Communities (1)                               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2000, in
                                                                            which it:
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action                   1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 declaring
                            for damages)                                         the applicant’s absence during the period from 9 to 22 February
                                                                                1998 inclusive to be irregular;
                          (2000/C 122/44)
                                                                            2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
In Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, assigned to the Joint
Research Centre, Ispra, and residing at Ispra (Italy), represented
by G. Marchesini, advocate with a right of audience before the
Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an address for                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
(Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and, second, for                in Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez v Commission of
compensation for the non-material damage alleged — the                                       the European Communities (1)
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;              (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           merits — List of officials considered to be most deserving of
a judgment on 23 February 2000, in which it:                                promotion — List of officials promoted — Staff report —
                                                                                Absence of statement of reasons)
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2000/C 122/46)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            In Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing at Kraai-
                                                                            nem (Belgium), represented by M.A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar,


title: Case C-501/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Thomas Specht v Land Berlin

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Thomas Specht v Land Berlin
   (Case C-501/12)
   2013/C 26/53
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Specht

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

               6.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative: does it follow from the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law that a transitional law — under which existing civil servants are placed on a step of the new system solely according to the amount of the basic pay they attained under the old (discriminatory) law on remuneration on the transition date, and according to which further progression to higher steps is thereupon calculated solely according to the periods of experience attained since the entry into force of the transitional law, irrespective of the civil servant’s absolute period of experience — constitutes a perpetuation of the existing age discrimination, continuing until the highest pay step is reached in each case?

               7.

               If Question 6 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a justification of this unrestricted, continuing unequal treatment by the legislative aim whereby the transitional law is to protect not (only) the acquired rights existing on the transition date but (also) the expectation of the lifetime income in the respective pay grade that was forecast to be paid under the old law on remuneration?
               Can the continuing discrimination against existing civil servants be justified by the fact that the regulatory alternative (individual placement also of existing civil servants according to periods of experience) would involve increased administrative expenditure?

               8.

               If such justification is rejected in Question 7: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, until a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has been implemented also for existing civil servants, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective and continuing remuneration of existing civil servants at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-126/00: Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
10.6.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/17
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 18 December 1998.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex        (1) OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1.
                                                                      (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 23 September 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission
into national law.                                                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
(1) OJ L 277, 10.10.1997, p. 24.
                                                                                (Case C-126/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/31)
                                                                      An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                      2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as
Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission                     Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                    of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                             Republic                                 Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-125/00)
                                                                      — Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (2000/C 163/30)                                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                           to comply with Commission Directive 98/77/EC (1) of
                                                                           2 October 1998 adapting to technical progress Council
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before               Directive 70/220/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March               of the Member States relating to measures to be taken
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles,
represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as           within the period prescribed by Article 4(1) thereof, the
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office             Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the fourth
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
                                                                           Article 4(1) of Directive 98/77/EC;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           — Declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
                                                                           Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 provisions;
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    tive 97/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the           — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Council of 17 June 1997 on certain component and
    characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the
    Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Pleas in law and main arguments
    under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
    paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty as well as Article      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    8(10) of Directive 97/24/EC; and                                  in Case C-105/00 (3) the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 31 December 1998.
— Declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform the
    Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese           (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
    Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same          (2) OJ 1970 L 76, p. 1.
    provisions;                                                       (3) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case F-70/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/20

         Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-70/07)
   (2007/C 223/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision (‘the contested decision’), in whatever form, by which the defendant rejected the applicant's application of 22 June 2006 that the Commission pay to him that part of the costs incurred by him in Case T-176/04 Marcuccio v Commission
                   (1) already decided before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, which the defendant was ordered to pay by order of 6 March 2006;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision, in whatever form, rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 347,67, plus default interest thereon, appreciation, at the total rate of 10 % per annum to be compounded annually, from the date of the application of 22 June 2006 to the present, by way of compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the loss of opportunity of which the applicant could have taken advantage if the sum due to him had been made available in due time;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant pro bono et ex aequo the sum of EUR 3 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant, including damage to his quality of life, by the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, in respect of each day from the present date until the date on which each decision granting fully and unconditionally the application dated 22 June 2006 is implemented by the defendant, the sum of EUR 2, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, payable on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage arising as a result of any delay in implementing the decision granting the application;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his arguments, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law: (1) absolute failure to state reasons; (2) infringement of the law; (3) breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.05.2006, p. 12. As a result of a clerical error, the applicant refers to Case T-176/03 instead of Case T-176/04.


title: Case T-199/08: Action brought on 3 June 2008 — Ziegler v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/28

         Action brought on 3 June 2008 — Ziegler v Commission
   (Case T-199/08)
   (2008/C 183/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the European Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEE Agreement (Case COMP/38.453 — International Removal Services), which imposes a fine of EUR 9 200 000,00 on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel the fine;

               —

               in the further alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.453 — International Removal Services, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement by fixing prices in Belgium for international removal services, by sharing part of that market and by rigging the procedure under invitations to tender.
   In support of its allegations, the applicant claims that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and of law in the definition of the market in question and in the evaluation of its size and of the market shares of each of the companies in question.
   The applicant relies, in addition, on pleas in law alleging breach of the duty to state the reasons for the decision, of the rights of the defence, of the right of access to the file, of the right to fair procedure and of the general principle of sound administration.
   So far as concerns the fine imposed and its amount, the applicant claims that:

               —

               the Commission did not show that the practices in questions had appreciably affected trade between the Member States;

               —

               the amount of the find is disproportionate in relation to the effective extent of the practices and their actual effect on the market; and

               —

               the practice of bogus quotes was known and accepted by the Commission for a long time; the lack of any reaction by the Commission led the applicant to believe that the practice was lawful.

         Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not take into account, as mitigating circumstances, that the concerted practice ceased long ago so far as the applicant was concerned and that bogus quotes were a response to market demand and not a cartel or concerted practice. The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-452/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2012 — NIPPONKOA Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport B.V.

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2012 — NIPPONKOA Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport B.V.
   (Case C-452/12)
   2013/C 26/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NIPPONKOA Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd

      Defendant: Inter-Zuid Transport B.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention which is exclusively autonomous or are the objectives and principles of the regulation also to be taken into account when applying such conventions?

               2.

               Does Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters preclude an interpretation of a convention by which an action for a declaration decided in one Member State does not preclude an action for performance brought later in another Member State, where that convention also makes an interpretation possible in that respect under Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.