               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/5

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers and composition of the Grand Chamber
   (2004/C 168/09)
   The Court of First Instance decided, at its Plenary Meeting on 13 May 2004, following the entry into office as Judges of Ms Cremona, Mr Czúcz, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Šváby, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Ms Labucka and Mr Papasavvas and the amendment of 21 April 2004 of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to amend its decision of 2 July 2003 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers and on the composition of the Grand Chamber, as follows:
   The following are appointed for the period from 13 May 2004 to 31 August 2004
   to the First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Labucka, Judges;
   to the First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Jaeger, Mr Mengozzi, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse and Ms Labucka, Judges;
   to the Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;
   to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;
   to the Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Mr Dehousse, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges;
   to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr Jaeger, Mr Dehousse, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges;
   to the Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Vilaras, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Vadapalas, Judges;
   to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Vilaras, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Vadapalas, Judges;
   to the Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Lindh, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Mr Cooke, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;
   to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Lindh, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Mr Cooke, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges.
   Where any of those Chambers is composed of a greater number of Judges than that with which it sits under Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the President of Chamber shall designate, when the preliminary report referred to in Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure is presented, the Judge or Judges other than the Judge Rapporteur who will not take part in the proceedings, by rota for each case, taking account of the seniority in office of the Judges attached to the Chamber, as provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   The Grand Chamber shall be composed, for the period from 1 June 2004 to 31 August 2004, of President Vesterdorf, Judges Lindh, Azizi, Pirrung and Legal, Presidents of Chamber, the Judges of the Extended Composition Chamber, who would have had to hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges, and of four other Judges nominated by the President of the Court of First Instance in turn from among the Judges of each of the other Chambers in order of their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   With regard to cases in which the written procedure was completed and a hearing for the oral procedure held or fixed before 13 May 2004, the Chambers shall continue to sit with the same composition as before for the oral procedure, the deliberations and the judgment.


title: Case T-520/13: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Philip Morris Benelux v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft impact assessment report prepared in the context of the proposal for a revision of the directive on tobacco products — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after commencement of the action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/27

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Philip Morris Benelux v Commission
   (Case T-520/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft impact assessment report prepared in the context of the proposal for a revision of the directive on tobacco products - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after commencement of the action - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 381/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Benelux (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and P. Harrison, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 July 2013 refusing the request for access to preliminary drafts of the impact assessment report attached to the Commission’s proposal for a revised directive on tobacco products.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Philip Morris Benelux.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-454/13: Action brought on 26 August 2013 — SNCM v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/41

         Action brought on 26 August 2013 — SNCM v Commission
   (Case T-454/13)
   2013/C 325/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F.-C. Laprévote, J.-P. Mignard and S. Mabile, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2013) 1926 of 2 May 2013;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision to the extent that the Commission held that the amount of aid includes the elements referred to in paragraph 218 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1926 final of 2 May 2013, by which the Commission, first of all, classified as State aid the financial compensation paid to the Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and to the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (CNM) in respect of maritime transport services provided between Marseille and Corsica for the years 2007-2013 in the context of a public service agreement. Next, the Commission declared to be compatible with the internal market the compensation paid to the SNCM and to CNM for transport services provided throughout the whole year (‘the basic service’), but declared to be incompatible with the internal market the compensation paid with respect to services provided during the peak periods, namely the Christmas period, February, spring-autumn and/or summer (‘the additional service’). Finally, the Commission ordered the recovery of State aid declared to be incompatible with the internal market [State aid case SA.22843 2012/C (ex 2012/NN)].
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors in law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment on the ground that the Commission incorrectly held that the ‘additional’ service was not a service of general economic interest. The applicant claims that the Commission thus:

                           —

                           erred in law by restricting the wide discretion afforded by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the States in defining their public services;

                           —

                           applied an incorrect test and which is not applicable in the case of a ‘genuine need’ for a public service;

                           —

                           erred in law, committed an error of fact and a manifest error of assessment by analysing separately the ‘basic’ service and the ‘additional’ service;

                           —

                           committed a manifest error of assessment of the deficiency of the private initiative concerning the ‘additional’ service.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the Commission wrongly held that the allocation of the public service agreement did not meet the fourth criterion set by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans et Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747), even though it was the result of an open and transparent call for tenders.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and on the assumption that the compensation of the ‘additional’ service constitutes State aid (quod non), infringement of Articles 106(2) TFEU and 107 TFEU, the principles of proportionality and the prohibition on unjust enrichment, and a manifest error of assessment in calculating the amount of State aid to be recovered, in so far as the calculation of the State aid to be recovered did not take account of either the genuine additional costs incurred by the SNCM with respect to the ‘additional’ service, or the under-compensation relating to the ‘basic’ service, and is based, in any event, on an incorrect assessment of the part of the compensation granted to the ‘basic’ service and of the part granted to the ‘additional’ service.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the position of the Commission was at odds with its own practice and applied the SIEG communication (1) which had not been adopted at the time the public service agreement was signed. The applicant moreover claims that the length of the procedure was such as to establish a legitimate expectation on its part precluding the Commission from ordering the national authorities to recover the State aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment by establishing an unjustified difference in treatment between the SNCM and other maritime companies.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ 2012 C 8, p. 4).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/04 Erich Drazdansky v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ‘UUP'S’ — Earlier national word marks UP — Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum (re-establishment of rights) — Article 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly without legal substance)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2005
   in Case T-158/04 Erich Drazdansky v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘UUP'S’ - Earlier national word marks UP - Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum (re-establishment of rights) - Article 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly without legal substance)
   (2005/C 217/90)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-158/04: Erich Drazdansky, residing in Wiener Neustadt (Austria), represented by A.M. Leeb, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, and intervener before the Court of First Instance, being The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland (Seven-Up International), established in Hamilton (Bermuda), represented by M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2004 (Case R 611/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Drazdansky and The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Action brought on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-118/98)

text:
C 312/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
The applicant submits that, in accordance with the                       rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
judgment in Orkem (3), it is not obliged to answer                       which was not taken into consideration in the
questions which could lead to self-incrimination. It further             calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
maintains that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the                    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
European Convention on Human Rights, the guarantees                      Staff Regulations,
contained in which are fundamental principles of
Community law and thus take precedence over the merely
legislative provisions of Regulation 17, it is legally entitled      Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
to refuse to take any action whereby it would be
compelled directly to incriminate itself in the investigation.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Self-incrimination has, it adds, also been held to be an
infringement of the presumption of innocence under
Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
Rights and of the negative freedom of expression                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant's
right not to be compelled to incriminate itself by its own
actions arises not merely from Community law, but also,              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
the applicant submits, arises at the same time and in
parallel from German domestic law in so far as it is not
superseded by Community law.
By directly fixing a coercive fine, the Commission
disregarded the two-stage procedure laid down for that               Action brought on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
purpose, and failed in particular to communicate the                          against the Council of the European Union
points of complaint, as required before fixing the amount
of daily coercive penalties, to allow the applicant a proper                               (Case T-118/98)
hearing and to comply with the other procedural                                              (98/C 312/41)
requirements. Moreover, the Commission's fixing of the
daily penalty at the maximum amount of ECU 1 000 was
disproportionate and thus an abuse of its discretion. The                           (Language of the case: French)
applicant comprehensively answered seven of the eleven
questions put to it in the context of the Commission's
enquiry. It was not obliged to answer the four remaining             An action against the Council of the European Union was
questions, as in that respect it could rely on its right not         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
to be compelled to incriminate itself.                               Communities on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
                                                                     resident in Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented by Jean-
(1) Case T-30/91 Solvay v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1821.            NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
(2) Case T-36/91 ICI v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1847.               FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
(3) Case 374/87 Orkem v. Commission [1989] ECR 3282.                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                     Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against              Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
             the Council of the European Union                           the request for refund of that part of the pension
                        (Case T-113/98)                                  rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
                         (98/C 312/40)
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
               (Language of the case: French)                            Staff Regulations,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
Communities on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen, resident
in La Hulpe, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
     the request for refund of that part of the pension


title: Case T-177/13: Action brought on 18 March 2013 — TestBioTech and Others/Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/11

         Action brought on 18 March 2013 — TestBioTech and Others/Commission
   (Case T-177/13)
   2013/C 178/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany); European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV (Braunschweig, Germany); and Sambucus eV (Vahlde, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, J. Stevenson, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 8 January 2013, which rejected the applicants’ requests for Internal Review of the Commission Decision No 2012/347/EU of 28 June 2012, granting a market authorisation under Regulation No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed to Monsanto Europe SA for its genetically modified soybean ‘MON 87701 x MON 89788’;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs; and

               —

               Order any other measure deemed appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that EFSA’s assessment that the Soybean is ‘substantially equivalent’ to its appropriate comparators is unlawful, is based on a scientific assessment which was not carried out in accordance with its own guidance, and/or is based on a manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that EFSA’s failure to give adequate or any consideration to the potential synergistic/combinatorial effects between the Soybean and other factors, and/or to require an adequate toxicity assessment to be conducted is contrary to its own guidance, legal obligations and/or it constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that EFSA’s failure to require an adequate immunological assessment to be carried out is contrary to its own guidance, legal obligations and/or constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that EFSA’s determination that no post-market authorisation monitoring of the consumption of the Soybean is manifestly in error and/or is vitiated by the flaws identified in the first three pleas.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April 1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership (Case C-246/98)

text:
C 278/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements-         Ð annul the Commission appointing authority's decision
rechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April                  of 22 July 1996 expressly rejecting the appellant's
1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse-               complaint concerning his requests for application of
         Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership                      the weightings for Zaire,
                       (Case C-246/98)
                        (98/C 278/37)
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of both
                                                                       proceedings,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem (District Court,                the above being without prejudice to all other rights,
Arnhem) of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry            entitlements, pleas in law and remedies relied on by the
on 9 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case               appellant.
of M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a
partnership, on the following questions:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain technical
    regulations which, pursuant to Article 8 of Council            Ð Manifest contradiction        in the grounds   for  the
    Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the time when             judgment,
    the Verordening came into force, should have been
    notified to the Commission beforehand?
                                                                   Ð Fundamental error Ð miscalculation: according to an
2. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico                         analysis of the documents used by the Court of First
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more                            Instance, the fact that the appellant's remuneration
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain                    was paid in Belgian francs during the period between
    provisions which constitute obstacles to freedom of                June 1994 and July 1996 reduced his purchasing
    trade for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?             power by 4,1 %, contrary to the legal finding in the
                                                                       judgment under appeal to the effect that it had
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                         increased by 9 %,
                                                                   Ð Manifestly erroneous reasoning: even supposing that
                                                                       prices were parallel and purchasing power became
                                                                       stable in Kinshasa and Brussels/Luxembourg as from
Appeal brought on 10 July 1998 by Mario Costacurta                     June 1994 (quod non), that would not mean that
against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by                       prices and purchasing power were equal; and in no
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    way would it mean that this was also true of the
the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between                      period between March 1993 and May 1994.
Mario Costacurta and Commission of the European
                         Communities
                                                                   (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 38.
                      (Case C-249/98 P)
                        (98/C 278/38)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European                Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                 European Communities against the French Republic
the European Communities on 10 July 1998 by Mario                                         (Case C-250/98)
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11 Route d'Esch.                                    (98/C 278/39)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
Ð declare the appeal admissible,                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð hold the appeal to be well founded,                              Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                                                                   Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case            the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
    T-177/96 Costacurta v. Commission (1),                         Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Turkish Power’ — Earlier word mark POWER — Opposition proceedings — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2005
   in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Turkish Power’ - Earlier word mark POWER - Opposition proceedings - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 205/37)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-34/04: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Mühlheim (Germany), represented by B. Piepenbrink, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other parties to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal having been Joachim Bälz and Friemar Hiller, residing in Stuttgart (Germany) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2003 (Case R 620/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft and Bälz and Hiller — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004


title: Case T-448/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  17 February 2006  Commission v Trends and Others (Arbitration clause — Plea of inadmissibility — Action against the partners of a company)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006 Commission v Trends and Others
   (Case T-448/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Plea of inadmissibility - Action against the partners of a company)
   (2006/C 108/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)

      Defendants: Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Marios Kontaratos (Athens), Anastasios Tillis (Neo Irakleio, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Georgios Argyrakos (Athens), Konstantinos Petrakis (Cholargos, Greece) and Fotini Koutroumpa (Glyfada, Greece)
   Re:
   Application made by the Commission for an order that the defendants reimburse the excess of the financial contribution paid by the European Community under two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community programme ‘Telematics applications of common interest’.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-219/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 184/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of the                           from investing their capital in shares quoted on markets
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                             other than Spanish regulated markets; moreover, it is
                                                                                probably the case that such legislation prevents those
                                                                                undertakings whose shares are quoted in such markets
                           (Case C-219/03)                                       from raising capital in Spain. Furthermore, the differen-
                                                                                tiated treatment affects the conduct of undertakings which
                                                                                issue shares, in particular because Spanish undertakings,
                           (2003/C 184/35)                                       which are more likely to have shareholders who are liable
                                                                                to Spanish income tax, are encouraged to see to it that
                                                                                their shares are quoted on a Spanish regulated market so
                                                                                that their shareholders may benefit from a more favour-
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        able tax regime.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Díaz-Llanos La Roche and L. Escobar Guer-                Moreover, the Spanish legislation in issue also constitutes an
rero, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           obstacle to the freedom to provide services, guaranteed under
                                                                           Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, inasmuch
                                                                           as it hinders markets other than Spanish regulated markets
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           from providing services to Spanish undertakings by creating a
                                                                           split in the European market in services provided by the stock
1.    Declare that, with regard to the tax on capital gains made           markets and exchanges, creating a captive market which
      on transfers since 1 January 1997 of shares purchased                favours Spanish regulated markets. Under those circumstances,
      prior to 31 December 1994, the Kingdom of Spain has                  such undertakings are not free to choose another European
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 of         market from among those which offer a better service.
      the EC Treaty and the corresponding Articles 36 and 40
      of the EEA Agreement inasmuch as it established a tax
      regime which is less favourable to shares quoted in
      markets other than Spanish regulated markets; and
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Italian Republic
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission is of the view that Spanish legislation                                              (Case C-224/03)
concerning income tax on natural persons is incompatible
with Community law and constitutes an obstacle to the free
movement of capital and the freedom to provide services so                                          (2003/C 184/36)
far as concerns tax on capital gains made on transfers since
1 January 1997 of shares purchased prior to 31 December
1994. Such legislation establishes for Spanish regulated markets
a more favourable tax regime than that applicable to shares
quoted on other markets:                                                   An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2003, by the Italian Republic,
when determining the reduction of the amount of the taxable                represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted
capital gain, a higher weighting is applied to shares quoted on            by State Advocate, Maurizio Fiorilli.
Spanish regulated markets than to shares quoted on other
markets (25 % as compared to 14,28 %). The latter are there-
fore subjected to a more onerous tax burden.                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     in order not to be liable to tax, shares quoted on markets
                                                                           —     Declare that, under Article 97 of the Treaty establishing
      other than Spanish regulated markets must have been
                                                                                the European Coal and Steel Community, with effect from
      owned by their proprietor for longer (eight years instead
                                                                                24 July 2002 the powers and competence of the
      of five).
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities established
                                                                                by Article 9 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 (Merger Treaty)
—     The Spanish legislation is thus contrary to Article 56 EC                  — in the sectors assigned under the ECSC Treaty to the
      and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European                            High Authority of the ECSC — have lapsed, with the
      Economic Area (EEA) inasmuch as it constitutes an                          result that any measure adopted or to be adopted by it in
      obstacle to the free movement of capital. By establishing                  those sectors which have not formed the subject-matter of
      a less-favourable tax treatment, the Spanish legislation                   a new agreement by the signatory states, is to be deemed
      appears to deter natural persons liable to income tax                      null and void and of no effect.


title: Case F-119/07: Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/32

         Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-119/07)
   (2008/C 183/63)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decisions of 30 May 2005, 19 December 2006, 12 January 2007 and 20 July 2007 in so far as they reject the conduct of an independent mediation procedure in respect of all existing disputes between the applicant and the defendant and immediate intervention by the defendant and the adoption of dispute resolution measures;

               —

               annul the Commission's decisions of 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007 in so far as they refuse payment of a provisional allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease;

               —

               order the Commission to pay appropriate damages to the applicant of at least EUR 15 000 for the non-material damage and damage to health caused to the applicant by the decisions sought to be annulled in accordance with the above applications, together with interest, from the date on which the action was brought, at a rate of 2 percentage points per year above the main refinancing operations rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the period in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first and second heads of claim in the applicant's application are based on the breach of the duty of care owed to the applicant by the defendant, on the principle of good administration and on the prohibition of abuse of discretion, or errors of assessment in the contested Commission decisions. In addition, as regards the first two heads of claim, the applicant objects on the basis that the decisions are contrary to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and in breach of his fundamental rights to respect for physical integrity and for private life which are protected by Articles 3(1) and 7 (also, with regard to the second head of claim, by Articles 41 and 47) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and by Article 8 (and also by Article 13, as regards the second head of claim) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
   With regard to the second head of claim, the applicant also objects on the basis that the contested decisions infringe Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the procedural provisions of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in particular Article 15 et seq. thereof.
   In his third head of claim, the applicant submits that, on the basis of what he regards as the defendant's administrative error, he is entitled, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 of the EC Treaty and general principles of law, to receive appropriate compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him.
   By the fourth head of claim, the applicant asks the Tribunal to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, the latter having triggered the present action by making allegedly untrue statements, in its rejection of the complaint, concerning the position allegedly taken by the medical committee.


title: Case C-337/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/17
      —     Commission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November                 2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            1998 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on
            the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (2), and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Commission Directive 98/100/EC of 21 December
            1998 amending Directive 92/76/EC recognising                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
            protected zones exposed to particular plant health           Case C-377/99 (1).
            risks in the Community (3),
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision on the financial correction
            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil           concerning expenditure of the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
            its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 98/68/EC,       mern in the arable crops sector for the 1995 harvest, in so far
            Article 2 of Directive 98/87/EC and Article 2 of             as the Commission
            Directive 98/100/EC;
                                                                         —     now charges 5 %, instead of 2 % as originally envisaged,
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                    of the expenditure whose justification was checked by
                                                                               classic on-the-spot control, and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     applies a charge of 2 % for the expenditure whose
                                                                               justification was checked by remote sensing.
By virtue of the mandatory nature of Articles 10 EC and 249
EC, Member States are required to take the measures necessary
to transpose directives addressed to them into national law              (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999, p. 19.
before the expiry of the periods prescribed for that purpose.
The periods laid down in the provisions referred to in
paragraph 1 of the heads of claim expired on 31 March 1999,
30 June 1999 and 1 January 1999, respectively, without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having adopted the necessary
measures.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by the Conseil
                                                                         National des Professions de l’Automobile (‘CNPA’), la
(1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.                                          Fédération Nationale de Distributeurs, Loueurs et Répara-
(2) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                         teurs de Matériel de Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de
(3) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.                                         Manutention (‘DLR’), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl,
                                                                         Roux SA, Marc Foucher-Creteau et Verdier Distri-
                                                                         bution Sàrl against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Third Chamber) in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des
                                                                         Professions de l’Automobile, la Fédération Nationale de
                                                                         Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériel de
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal                       Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de Manutention, Auto
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                        Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl, Roux SA, Marc Foucher-
                     European Communities                                Creteau et Verdier Distribution Sàrl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                          (Case C-337/00)
                                                                                (Case C-341/00 P)
                         (2000/C 316/32)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/33)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             An appeal against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
Communities on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic                 Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Minis-                  Communities in Case T-45/00 between CNPA and Others and
terialrat, and Thomas Jürgensen, Regierungsrat, of the Federal           the Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Straße,               the European Communities on 18 September 2000 by CNPA
D-53117 Bonn.                                                            and Others, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July                    The appellants claim that the Court should:
      2000 on the exclusion from Community financing of
      certain expenditure of the Member States charged to the            having regard to Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
      Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance            the Court of First Instance
      and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as under Article 1
      the sum of DEM 17 412 165,440 is not accepted by the               —     set aside the contested order on grounds of a substantial
      EAGGF but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;                    procedural defect;


title: Case C-23/09 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by ecoblue AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-281/07: ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/8

         Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by ecoblue AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-281/07: ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-23/09 P)
   2009/C 90/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ecoblue AG (represented by: C. Osterrieth, T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 November 2008 in the Case T-281/07;

               —

               to annul the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 April 2007 (Case R 0844/2006-1) regarding the community trade mark application with the application No. 002871598 ‘Ecoblue’

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance misapplied art. 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation since the conflicting trademarks do not display the minimum degree of similarity required in order to establish a likelihood of confusion.
   It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that the distinctiveness of the earlier trademark, which formed the basis of the opposition, constitutes an essential requirement of the likelihood of confusion. The CFI failed to consider that aspect of the dispute and merely compared the two opposing trademarks from a visual, phonetic and conceptual perspective, as if the earlier trademark was a mark which enjoyed an average degree of distinctiveness.
   It is also submitted that the CFI did not correctly apply the rule that consumers normally attach more importance to the first part of words. Since both word elements, ‘Eco’ and ‘blue’, are equally descriptive, the consumer automatically puts more emphasis on the first word, ‘Eco’, thereby recognising the distinctiveness of both trademarks.
   It is further submitted that the CFI erred in law in failing to treat the conceptual difference between the opposing marks as being of primary importance.


title: Case T-181/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Tay Za v Council

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/46

         Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Tay Za v Council
   (Case T-181/08)
   (2008/C 171/87)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (Yangoon, Myanmar) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of Regulation 194/2008 of 25 February 2008, as a whole or in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (1) in so far as it applies to him for four reasons:
   First, the applicant contends that the regulation has no proper legal basis. He submits to this end that neither Article 60 EC nor Article 301 EC gives the Council the power to freeze the entirety of a person's funds who is not connected with the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. Second, the applicant claims that the regulation infringes the obligation to state reasons on the basis of Article 253 EC. Namely, the applicant claims that the regulation does not provide any reasons why the applicant has been included in Part J of Annex VI of the said regulation which lists members of the Burmese government and people associated with it. Also, the Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP (2) requiring Member States to prevent the applicant form entering into and transiting through their territories does allegedly not provide any reasons either for the applicant's inclusion in the list, but simply includes him in a list under a heading ‘Persons who benefit from Government Economic Policies’. Third, the applicant submits that the regulation infringes his fundamental rights, since it allegedly interferes in a disproportionate manner with his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property, to a fair hearing and to effective legal protection. Fourth, according to the applicant the regulation infringes the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Common Position No 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006 renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar (OJ 2006 L 116, p. 77) extended until 30 April 2009 by Council Common Position 2008/349/CFSP of 29 April 2008 (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 57).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Joined Cases C-114/95 and C-115/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Texaco A/S v. Middelfart Havn and Others and Olieselskabet Danmark amba v. Trafikministeriet and Others (Maritime transport - Goods duty - Import surcharge)

text:
C 295/4               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27 . 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      provisions similar to those of Article 18 of the
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                   agreement between the European Economic
                                                                           Community and the Kingdom of Sweden, signed in
                         of 17 July 1997                                   Brussels on 22 July 1972, concluded and approved on
in Joined Cases C-114/95 and C-115/95 (reference for                       behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret): Texaco                      (EEC) No 2838/72 of 19 December 1972 .
A/S v. Middelfart Havn and Others and Olieselskabet
      Danmark amba v. Trafikministeriet and Others (')                3 . Community law does not preclude the imposition by a
  (Maritime transport — Goods duty — Import surcharge)                     Member State of such an import surcharge on goods
                                                                           imported directly from a non-member country with
                          ( 97/C 295/05 )                                  which the Community has not concluded an
                                                                           agreement.
                 (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                      4 . Where a Member State has imposed or approved a
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            duty contrary to Community law, it is required in
           published in the European Court Reports)                        principle to repay the duty levied in breach of
                                                                           Community law. If the proceeds of the duty have been
In Joined Cases C-114/95 and C-115/95 : reference to the                   allocated to independent operators subject to local
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the 0stre                    authority control, it is not contrary to Community law
Landsret (Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the                        for the action for repaymemt of those duties to lie
proceedings pending before that court between Texaco A/S                   against such operators, provided that the rules
 and Middelfart Havn, Arhus Havn, Struer Havn, Alborg                      governing such actions are not less favourable than
 Havn, Fredericia Havn, Norre Sundby Havn, Hobro                           those governing similar domestic actions and are not
 Havn, Randers Havn, Abenra Havn, Esbjerg Havn,                            so framed as to render virtually impossible or
 Skagen Havn, Thyboron Havn and between Olieselskabet                      excessively difficult the recovery of duty unduly paid.
 Danmark amba and Trafikministeriet, Fredericia
 Kommune, Koge Havn, Odense Havnevsesen, Holstebro                   5 . It is not contrary to Community law for a national
 Struer Havn, Vejle Havn, Abenra Havn, Alborg                              limitation period applicable to claims for repayment of
 Havnevassen, Arhus Havnevaesen, Frederikshavn Havn,                       duties levied in breach of Article 95 of the Treaty or a
 Esbjerg Havn on the interpretation of Articles 9 to 13 , 18               provision similar to Article 18 of the agreement
 to 29 , 84, 86 , 90 and 95 of the EEC Treaty, of Council                  concluded between the European Economic
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986                          Community and the Kingdom of Sweden to run from
 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to                  an earlier point in time than that from which the
 maritime transport between Member States and between                      duties were discontinued.
 Member States and third countries ( OJ L 378 , 31 . 12 .
 1986 , p. 1 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 4056/86           (') OJ C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the
 application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to
 maritime transport ( OJ L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p. 4 ), and of
 Articles 6 and 1 8 of the Agreement between the European
 Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden,
 signed in Brussels on 22 July 1972, concluded and
 approved on behalf of the Community by Council                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2838/72 of 19 December 1972 ( OJ,                                         of 17 July 1997
 English Special Edition 1972 ( 31 December), p. 98 ), the
 Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of G. F. Mancini,                  in Case C-183/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and P. J. G.                  the President of the College van Beroep voor het
 Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate              Bedrijfsleven): Affish BV v. Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
 General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                                           van Vee en Vlees H
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 July 1997, in which it               (Veterinary inspection — Protective measure — Principle
 has ruled :
                                                                       of proportionality — Principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations — Validity of Commission
  1 . It is contrary to Article 95 of the EEC Treaty for a                                    Decision 95/1 19/EC)
      Member State to impose a 40% import surcharge on a
      general duty levied on goods loaded, unloaded, or                                             97/C 295/06 )
      otherwise taken on board or landed within its ports or
      in the deep-water approach channels to its ports where                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
      goods are imported by ship from another Member
      State .
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  2 . Such an import surcharge is also contrary to                              published in the European Court Reports)
      Community law where it is applicable to goods
      imported from a non-member country with which the                In Case C-183/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      Community has concluded an agreement containing                  of the EC Treaty from the President of the College van


title: Case C-192/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/5

         Appeal brought on 15 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-192/13 P)
   2013/C 178/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 in Case T-235/11 Spain v Commission.

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages: ‘Supply and assembly of track materials on the high-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Madrid-Lleida’ (CCI No 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed railway line Madrid-Barcelona. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Access to Zaragoza’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003); ‘High-speed line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell. Subsection X-A (Olérdola-Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007) and ‘New high-speed railway access to Levante. Subsection La Gineta-Albacete (Platform)’ (CCI No 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014).

               —

               Order the respondent to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         Error of law with respect to the effects of the period of time referred to in Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94

       (1)

         of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund
      . After the expiry of the period referred to, the Commission may no longer adopt any financial correction measures and, therefore, it is obliged to make payment and the correction applied is unlawful.

         Error of law in relation to the concept of an award of a contract within the meaning of Council Directive 93/38/EEC

       (2)

         of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
      . Points (e) and (f) of Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38 do not apply generally to any amendments whatsoever to public contracts agreed during their execution stage, but to substantive amendments only. A substantive amendment such as to constitute a new award of a contract can be regarded as having arisen only when the conditions laid down in the judgment in Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur
       (3) are met.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84

      (3)  Case C-454/06 Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur [2008] ECR I-4401


title: Case C-56/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Ink cartridge market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC — Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA
   (Case C-56/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Ink cartridge market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Lack of Community interest - Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC - Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged)
   2013/C 344/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtanswalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, Rechtsanwalt), Lexmark International Technology SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 EFIM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C-3/39.391 concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges — Powers of the Commission — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — No Community interest — Proportionality — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Commission Notice on the handling of complaints

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-160/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/26

         Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)
   (Case T-160/06)
   (2006/C 190/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Estancia Piedra SL (Toro, Spain) (represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franciscan Vineyards Inc. (St. Helena, USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 361/2005-2);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’ for products in class 33 (Alcoholic beverages) — Community trade mark No 1 894 831

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Franciscan Vineyards Inc.

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘ESTANCIA’ for products in classes 29, 30 and 33 (meat, fish, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages …)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Firstly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it was concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’. Secondly, infringement of the procedural requirements since the Board of Appeal accepted, according to the applicant, an invalid and late filed authorisation from Franciscan Vineyards for their representatives and illegitimately extended the time limit for Franciscan Vineyards to file the authorisation.


title: Case C-47/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community — Community assistance programmes — Irregularities on the part of the co-contractor of the Commission — Services provided by a subcontractor — Non-payment — Risks inherent in economic activities — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty of care of the Community administration)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-47/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community - Community assistance programmes - Irregularities on the part of the co-contractor of the Commission - Services provided by a subcontractor - Non-payment - Risks inherent in economic activities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty of care of the Community administration)
   (2009/C 44/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (represented by: A.P. Bentley, QC, and P. Green, barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/03 Masdar UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing as unfounded an action for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following refusal by the Commission to pay it for services which it claims to have provided in connection with two projects under the TACIS Programme in Moldavia and Russia.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Masdar (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-289/99 (1)

   (2005/C 115/70)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 28 January 2005, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-289/99, V.O.F. Heiliger, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June 1997 in the case of L. Nederhoff & Zonen v. Dijkgraaf en Hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland (Case C-232/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 252/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van                   5 , ( a ) If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) or Question 4 are
Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June                              answered in the affirmative, does Article 3 of
1997 in the case of L. Nederhoff & Zonen v. Dijkgraaf en                              Directive    76/464/EEC,       whether    or     not   in
   Hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland                                  conjunction with Article 10 of the Directive,
                          Case C-232/97 )
                                                                                permit, in connection with the appraisal of
                                                                                applications for authorization, requirements to be
                           ( 97/C 252/37)                                             imposed which are not contained in the Directive,
                                                                                such as the obligation to investigate whether to
                                                                                choose less environmentally harmful alternatives ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van                            ( b ) If so, may those additional requirements lead to a
State ( Council of State ), Netherlands, of 17 June 1997,                             situation in which the grant of authorization is
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June                                   impossible or possible only in exceptional cases ?
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of L. Nederhoff
& Zonen v. Dijkgraaf en Hoogheemraden van het Hoog
heemraadschap Rijnland ( Dike warden and members of                    6 . If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) or Question 4 are
                                                                              answered        in   the     affirmative, do   the     limitative
the Rijnland Polder and Dike Conservancy ) on the
following questions:                                                          conditions contained in Annex I, point 32 ( 1 ) ( i ) and
                                                                              ( ii ), of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976
                                                                              on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions of the Member States
1 . Must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( d) of                      relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on                            certain dangerous substances and preparations ( OJ No
     pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                         L 262, 27. 9 . 1976, p. 201 ) preclude a competent
     discharged into the aquatic environment of the                           authority of a Member State, when considering
     Community ( OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 ) be                      applications for authorization concerning the
     interpreted to include other 'significant sources ...                    introduction into surface water by professional users
     ( including multiple and diffuse sources )', as laid down                of creosote-treated wood, from applying assessment
     in Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on                       criteria such as to make that use impossible or possible
     limit values and quality objectives for discharges of                    only in very exceptional cases ?
     certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
     Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC ( OJ No L 181 , 4. 7.
     1986, p. 16 )?
2 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative, must the
     expression '( other) significant sources ... ( including          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan
     multiple and diffuse sources )' in Article 5 of Directive         Laaninoikeus by order of that court of 19 June 1997 in
     86/280/EEC, be interpreted to include the leaching of                                       the case of KappAhl Oy
     creosote oil from wood placed in surface water ?                                                ( Case C-233/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/38 )
3 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, or the
     replies to Questions 1 and 2 are both in the negative,
     must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( d ) of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Directive 76/464/EEC be interpreted as including:                 European Communities by an order of the Uudenmaan
                                                                       Laaninoikeus (Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court )
                                                                       of 19 June 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
     ( a ) the introduction into surface water of wood                 on 25 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
           impregnated with creosote oil, even though it is            KappAhl Oy on the following question:
           established in advance that through leaching-out
           the creosote oil will reach the surface water; or
                                                                       Is Article 99 of the Act of Accession ( ! ) to be interpreted
                                                                       as referring also to goods originating in non-member
     ( b ) the leaching out of creosote oil from wood placed           countries which have been in free circulation in another
           in surface water ?
                                                                       Member State of the European Community and are
                                                                       imported from there into Finland ?
4 . If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) are answered in the
                                                                       ( 1 ) Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republiic of
     negative, is it permissible, in the light particularly of               Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
     Article 5 (2 ) and Article 10 of Directive 76/464/EEC,                  and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
     for national legislation or the competent authority to                  Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p. 21 ).
     give another, more wide-ranging meaning to the
     notion of 'discharge' than that contained in the
     Directive ?


title: Case C-328/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency — Defendant resident in a third country — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel
   (Case C-328/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency - Defendant resident in a third country - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)
   2014/C 85/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann)

      Defendant: Lilly Hertel

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor has the centre of his main interests for decisions deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) brought against a defendant whose place of residence is in a third country.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 5 February 1997 in Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Special surveillance measures concerning imports of apples - Countervailing charge - Applied concurrently - Products in transit to the Community - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
26 . 4 . 97                                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /3
 1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber )
2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                                      of 5 February 1997
                                                                         in Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of
(') OJ No C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 , p. 6 .                                                   the European Communities (')
                                                                         (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Special
                                                                         surveillance measures concerning imports of apples —
                                                                         Countervailing charge — Applied concurrently —
                                                                         Products in transit to the Community — Principle of the
                                                                                protection of legitimate expectations)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 ( 97/C 131 /06 )
                         ( Second Chamber)
                        of 13 March 1997                                                  (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-109/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens ): Astir AE v. the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                            Greek State ( 1 )                                     published in the European Court Reports)
(Export refunds for agricultural products — Loss of goods
   in transit by reason of force majeure — Variable refund)              In Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE, a company
                                                                         governed by Greek law, established in Athens, represented
                            ( 97/C 131 /05 )                             by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                         31 Grand-rue — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                  (Language of the case: Greek)                          of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
                                                                         Chamber ) of 15 December 1994 in Case T-489/93
                                                                         Unifruit Hellas v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1201 ,
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: Xenophon Yataganas and
                                                                         Theofanis Christoforou ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),
In Case C-109/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Polimeles Protodikio,                composed of G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, G.
Athens, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                      Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La
pending before that court between Astir AE and the Greek                 Pergola, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
State — on the interpretation of Articles 10 (4 ), 20 and 21             order on 5 February 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                         as follows :
of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2730/79 of
29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules
for the application of the system of export refunds on                   1 . The appeal is dismissed.
agricultural products (2) — the Court ( Second Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.                 2 . The applicant shall bear the costs.
Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B.
Elmer,       Advocate-General;            D.  Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 March 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :
Articles 10 (4), 20 and 21 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2730179 of 29 November 1979 laying down                         Action on 14 February 1997 by the Commission of the
common detailed rules for the application of the system of               European Communities against Cascina Laura SAS di
export refunds on agricultural products must be                          Aldo Delbo e C. and Gariboldi Engineering Company SRL
interpreted as meaning that a trader is not entitled to an
                                                                                ( Case C-65/97)
export refund where the product concerned has perished
in transit as a result of force majeure, after leaving the                                            ( 97/C 131 /07 )
geographical territory of the Community, and where the
same rate of refund has been fixed for all non-member
countries, with the exception of one single country, for                 An action against Cascina Laura SAS Aldo Delbo e C. ,
which no refund has been fixed.                                          whose registered office is in Novara ( Italy), and Gariboldi
                                                                         Engineering Company SRL, whose registered office is in
                                                                         Milan (Italy ), was brought before the Court of Justice of
H OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 12 . 12 . 1979 , p . 1 .                              the European Communities on 14 February 1997 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal Service and Jean-Francis
                                                                         Pasquier, a national civil servant on detachment to that


title: Case C-143/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Article 11 — System of export refunds on agricultural products — Condition for the grant of the refund — Refund paid to the exporter after submission of documents forged by its contracting partner — Goods not exported — Conditions for the application of sanctions)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-143/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - System of export refunds on agricultural products - Condition for the grant of the refund - Refund paid to the exporter after submission of documents forged by its contracting partner - Goods not exported - Conditions for the application of sanctions)
   (2008/C 142/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.O.B.Reuter & Co.

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 11(1) of 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 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57), and of Article 51 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) — Refund paid to an exporter after submission of documents forged by a third party — Conditions governing the application of penalties
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 11(1) of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export refund on goods, where those goods, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the exporter's contracting partner, were not exported.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-466/01: Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 84/44                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
      (b) by excluding workers from third countries who are                 ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            lawfully employed in a Member State from the right              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
            to stand for election to the works councils and
            general assemblies of chambers of workers, the
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
            under the provisions of the Association Agreements
            concluded by the Community with such third                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
            countries, which prohibit discrimination against
            such workers;
                                                                            —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                               down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                1999/89/EC (1) of 15 November 1999 amending Direc-
                                                                                tive 91/494/EEC on animal health conditions governing
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                  intra-Community trade in and imports from third
                                                                                countries of fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
According to Article 39(2) EC, the right to freedom of                            directive;
movement within an EC Member State enjoyed by nationals of
other Member States entails the abolition of any discrimination
based on nationality between workers of the Member States as                —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of
work and employment. Article 28 of the EEA Agreement
contains analogous provisions. In addition, Article 8(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community expressly confers on workers
from other Member States the ‘right of eligibility for workers’
representative bodies in the undertaking’. That wording                     Pleas in law and main arguments
includes within its ambit the right to elect, and to stand for
election to, workers’ representative bodies within a Member
State.
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
The Commission further argues that the notion of conditions
                                                                            each Member State to which they are addressed.
of work and employment as contained in the Association
Agreements and comparable agreements must be interpreted
as having the same meaning as in Article 39(2) EC and
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, according to which
it covers the exercise of rights of participation in management,            Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
such as the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in works              to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
council elections and elections to chambers of workers.                     to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                  lic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                            ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                          (Case C-466/01)
                           (2002/C 84/76)
                                                                            (1) OJ No L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Decem-