title: Case T-162/13: Action brought on 18 March 2013 — Magic Mountain Kletterhallen and Others v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/25

         Action brought on 18 March 2013 — Magic Mountain Kletterhallen and Others v Commission
   (Case T-162/13)
   2013/C 147/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Magic Mountain Kletterhallen GmbH (Berlin, Germany); Kletterhallenverband Klever e.V. (Leipzig, Germany); Neoliet Beheer BV (Son, Netherlands); and Pedriza BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented by: M. von Oppen and A. Gerdung)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2012) 8761 final of 5 December 2012 concerning State aid SA.33952 (2012/NN) — Germany, Climbing centres of the Deutscher Alpenverein, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 264 TFEU;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
               By their first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission wrongly found the aid at issue to be compatible with the internal market, since the requirements of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU were not satisfied. They submit that the aid does not serve a purpose in the common interest. In that respect, they also argue, inter alia, that this can be determined only in the case of a proven market deficiency, which is lacking in this instance. Moreover, they argue that there is no compatibility for the purposes of Article 106(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the applicants claim that the aid is not appropriate to address the alleged market efficiency problem. The aid also provides no incentive. The Commission merely assumes that the aid has an incentive effect. The aid is also not appropriate. The Commission merely assumes that the national authorities would ensure that the individual aid payments were proportionate, and it bases its misassumption on the status of the association of being in the common interest. The applicants accuse the Commission of having failed to balance the various interests correctly, in that it failed to weigh up the positive and negative effects of the aid. In that respect, they claim that, in the case of doubt, operating aid (and the aid granted is primarily operating aid) is not compatible with the internal market.

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure
               In the context of their second plea, the applicants submit that, in spite of serious difficulties in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market, the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure. An indicator of such serious difficulties is the length of the preliminary investigation procedure — over one year in this instance. Similarly, the Commission failed to sufficiently establish the facts necessary for its assessment. In the view of the applicants, only in the formal investigation procedure could a sufficiently in-depth investigation of the climbing centre market have been carried out. Furthermore, the complaint examined by the Commission gave rise to difficult legal issues regarding operating aid for associations in the common interest. The applicants further submit that, as competitor undertakings or associations of undertakings they are interested parties within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and they have the right to submit their opinion in the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU, a right of which they were deprived as a result of the failure to initiate the procedure.


title: Case C-450/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA (Preliminary reference — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/13

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA
   (Case C-450/15) (1)

   ((Preliminary reference - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2)(a) - Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality - Determination of the amount of the fine - Criteria - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - National practice - Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine - Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances - Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover - Absence of jurisdiction of the Court - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
   (2016/C 343/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

      Operative part of the order

   The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decision of 16 June 2015.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015


C 109/40              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.5.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-234/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-31/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 109/72)                                                      (2002/C 109/75)
By order of 22 January 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-234/00 (Reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-31/01: Commission of the
ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s        European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Minister of               and Northern Ireland.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons
Ltd.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-41/01 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-239/00 P (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/76)
                        (2002/C 109/73)
                                                                      By order of 23 November 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-41/01: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
from the register of Case C-239/00 P: Aldo Kuijer v Council of
the European Union.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-85/01 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-449/00 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/77)
                        (2002/C 109/74)
                                                                      By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 7 December 2001 the President of the Court of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-85/01: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-449/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
European Communities v French Republic.                               and Northern Ireland.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                             (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


title: Case C-375/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Belgacom SA, Mobistar SA, KPN Group Belgium SA v Belgian State (Telecommunication services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Articles 3 and 12 to 14 — Rights to use radio frequencies — Fees for rights to use radio frequencies — One-off fees for grant and renewal of rights to use radio frequencies — Method of calculation — Alteration of existing rights)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Belgacom SA, Mobistar SA, KPN Group Belgium SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-375/11) (1)

   (Telecommunication services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 3 and 12 to 14 - Rights to use radio frequencies - Fees for rights to use radio frequencies - One-off fees for grant and renewal of rights to use radio frequencies - Method of calculation - Alteration of existing rights)
   2013/C 156/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Belgacom SA, Mobistar SA, KPN Group Belgium SA

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 3, 12, 13 and 14(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — National rules requiring individual operators holding rights of use for mobile telephone frequencies to pay a one-off fee in the context of authorisations to install and operate on their territory mobile phone networks for a period of 15 years — Renewal of operators’ individual rights — Obligation for applicants for new acquisition of rights to pay a one-off fee, fixed by auction, in addition to the annual fees — Whether permitted

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from charging mobile telephone operators holding rights of use for radio frequencies a one-off fee payable for both a new acquisition of rights of use for radio frequencies and for renewals of those rights, in addition to an annual fee for making the frequencies available, intended to encourage optimal use of the resources while at the same time also covering the cost of managing the authorisation, provided that those fees genuinely are intended to ensure optimal use of the resource made up of those radio frequencies and are objectively justified, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate in relation to their intended purpose and take into account the objectives in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), which it is for the national court to assess.
               Subject to that same condition, the fixing of the amount of a one-off fee for rights of use for radio frequencies by reference either to the amount of the former one-off licence fee calculated on the basis of the number of frequencies and months to which the rights of use relate, or to the amounts raised through auction, may be an appropriate method for determining the value of the radio frequencies.

               2.

               Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/20 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from charging a mobile telephone operator a fee such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that that amendment is objectively justified and effected in a proportionate manner and notice has been given to all interested parties in order to enable them to express their views, which it is for the national court to assess in the light of the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings.

               3.

               Article 14(2) of Directive 2002/20 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from charging a mobile telephone operator a fee such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-414/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by Bolloré against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/10

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by Bolloré against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 27 June 2012 in Case T-372/10 Bolloré v Commission
   (Case C-414/12 P)
   2012/C 355/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bolloré (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and the obligation to state reasons in drawing no inferences from the fact that Bolloré was penalised as a parent company, unlike Stora, which was in a similar position;

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (‘ECHR’), the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of non-distortion, Bolloré’s rights of defence, the effects of the annulment of Decision 2004/337/EC, (1) the principle of res judicata and Article 48(2) of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, in holding that judgment in the case against Bolloré was delivered within a reasonable time and that Bolloré was able to defend itself against the complaints notified against it;

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and fairness in refusing to reduce the amount of the fine incurred due to the factual and procedural context of the present proceedings;

               —

               rule definitively in Case T-372/10 in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, accordingly, set aside the judgment appealed against in so far as it concerns Bolloré or, in any event, in the exercise of its full jurisdiction, reduce the amount imposed on Bolloré by the Commission and upheld by the General Court;

               —

               should the Court not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;

               —

               lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, divided into two parts, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and the obligation to state reasons by failing to draw any inferences from the fact that it had been penalised for the conduct of its former subsidiary, unlike Stora, which was in a similar position.
   By its second plea, divided into four parts, it argues that the General Court infringed Article 41 of the Charter, Article 6 of the ECHR, the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of non-distortion, the appellant’s rights of defence, the effects of the annulment of Decision 2004/337, the principle of res judicata and Article 48(2) of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, in holding that Bolloré’s right to have its case heard and judged within a reasonable time had not been infringed.
   By its third plea, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and fairness in failing to take account of the factual and procedural context of the present proceedings and in refusing to reduce the amount of the fine incurred.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 17 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2187 — CVC v Lenzing) (OJ 2004 L 82, p. 20).


title: Case C-209/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 4 May 2011 — Sportingbet plc v Ipourgos Politismou and Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 4 May 2011 — Sportingbet plc v Ipourgos Politismou and Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon
   (Case C-209/11)
   2011/C 194/15
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sportingbet plc

      Respondents: Ipourgos Politismou and Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is national legislation which, in order to attain the objective of restricting the supply of games of chance, grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single undertaking, which has the form of a public limited company and is listed on the stock exchange, compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty where, moreover, that undertaking advertises the games of chance which it organises and it expands abroad, players participate freely and the maximum bet and winnings are set per form and not per player?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is national legislation which, in seeking exclusively to combat criminality by exercising control over the undertakings that operate in the sector at issue so as to ensure that those activities are carried out solely within controlled systems, grants a single undertaking the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty even where grant of the right results in parallel in unrestricted expansion of the supply in question? Or is it necessary in every case, in order for that restriction to be considered suitable for achieving the objective of combating criminality, that the expansion of supply be controlled in any event, that is to say, be only as great as is required in order to achieve that objective? If that expansion must in any event be controlled, can expansion be considered controlled from that point of view if the exclusive right in the sector in question is granted to a body with the attributes described in the first question referred? Finally, if grant of the exclusive right in question is considered to result in controlled expansion of the supply of games of chance, does its grant to just a single undertaking go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that the same objective can also be profitably served by granting that right to more than one undertaking?

               3.

               If, following the above two questions referred, it were to be held that the grant, by the national provisions relevant in the case in point, of an exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance is not compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty: (a) is it permissible, for the purposes of those provisions of the Treaty, for the national authorities not to examine, during a transitional period necessary in order to enact rules compatible with the EC Treaty, applications to engage in the activities in question submitted by persons lawfully established in other Member States; (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, on the basis of what criteria is the duration of that transitional period determined; (c) if no transitional period is allowed, on the basis of what criteria must the national authorities rule on the applications?


               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/89

         (2006/C 326/179)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

      OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

      OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

      OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-300/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that Court of 25 April 2003 in the case of Honeywell Aerospace GmbH against Hauptzollamt Gießen — Fulda Office

text:
C 226/6                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.9.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 4 June 2003                          Finanzgericht by order of that Court of 25 April 2003 in
in the case of Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach against                         the case of Honeywell Aerospace GmbH against
Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich and Österreichischer                                     Hauptzollamt Gießen — Fulda Office
  Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst
                                                                                (Case C-300/03)
                          (Case C-297/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/09)
                         (2003/C 226/08)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     European Communities by order of the Hessisches
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                  Finanzgericht (Hessian Finance Court) of 25 April 2003,
(Supreme Court) of 4 June 2003, received at the Court Registry             received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2003, for a prelimi-
on 10 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                   nary ruling in the case of Honeywell Aerospace GmbH against
Sozialhilfeverband       Rohrbach against Arbeiterkammer                   Hauptzollamt Gießen — Fulda Office — on the following
Oberösterreich and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund,                     questions:
Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst on the following questions:
1.   Is a limited liability company governed by private law,               1.   Is a customs debt deemed, under Article 215(2) or the first
     whose sole shareholder is a social assistance association                  indent of Article 215(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)
     governed by public law (local authority association) and                   No 2913/92 (1), as applicable until 9 May 1999, to have
     which has been entrusted with tasks of a private sector                    been incurred at the place where the customs authorities
     authority (social assistance by way of the operation of a                  conclude that the goods are in a situation in which a
     workplace for disabled persons), nevertheless still to be                  customs debt is incurred (Article 215(2)) or at the place
     regarded as a ‘State entity’, with the effect that Article 3               where the goods were placed under the customs procedure
     (1), in conjunction with Article 1(1)(c), of Council                       [which is not discharged] (first indent of Article 215(3))
     Directive 77/187/EEC (1), as amended by Council                            even if a consignment placed under the external
     Directive 98/50/EC (2) (now Council Directive 2001/23/EC),                 Community transit procedure is not presented at the office
     which was not correctly transposed into national law, is                   of destination and the place where the offence or irregu-
     directly applicable against it if, under a contract of transfer,           larity occurred cannot be established, but the customs
     which is subject only to the agreement of the association's                authorities have failed, contrary to the last part of
     board, the social assistance association's shareholding is to              Article 378(1) and the first sentence of Article 379(2) of
     be transferred to a purely private limited liability company?              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2), as appli-
                                                                                cable until 30 June 2001, to indicate in the notification
                                                                                under Article 379(1) of that regulation the time-limit by
     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:                 which proof must be furnished to the office of departure of
                                                                                the regularity of the transit operation or the place where
                                                                                the offence or irregularity was actually committed?
2.   As a ‘State entity’ within the meaning of the case-law of the
     Court of Justice of the European Communities, can a social
     assistance association (local authority association) which
     transfers its operations itself rely on the direct application        2.   If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
     of Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 1(1)(c), of the
     Directive referred to in Question 1 against its employees,
     who are contesting the transfer of their employment con-
     tracts to a transferee (within the meaning of Question 1)                  Does the recovery of duty by the competent customs
     and who insist that their employment relationship with the                 authority under the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
     transferor continues to exist, where the provision of the                  Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as applicable until 30 June
     Directive referred to in Question 1 has not been correctly                 2001, require the customs authorities to have indicated in
     transposed, with the effect that the employment contracts                  the notification under Article 379(1) of that regulation the
     are deemed to have been transferred to the transferee? In                  time-limit by which proof must be furnished to the office
     that connection, is it material that the transferor ‘State                 of departure of the regularity of the transit operation or
     entity’ has no legislative competence to transpose a direc-                the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
     tive into national law, that competence lying with a                       committed?
     superior legislative body (the Land)?
(1) OJ L 61 [1977], p. 26.                                                 (1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
(2) OJ L 201 [1998], p. 88.                                                (2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2001 in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries — Request for additional licences — Case of hardship — Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annulment)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/33
3.    The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Zino
      own costs.                                                                 Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA.
                                                                           2.    Zino Davidoff SA, Davidoff et Cie SA, the European Parlia-
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                ment and the Council of the European Union shall bear their
                                                                                own costs.
                                                                           3.    Lancaster BV and the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties shall bear their own costs.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                         (Third Chamber)
                       of 23 October 2001
in Case C-313/00 P: Zino Davidoff SA v European
                    Parliament and Others (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                              — Costs)
                          (2002/C 84/54)                                                           of 13 November 2001
                   (Language of the case: German)                          in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                           Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Request for additional licences — Case of hardship —
In Case C-313/00 P: appeal by Zino Davidoff SA, established                Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
in Fribourg (Switzerland), and Davidoff & Cie SA, established              No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annul-
in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by R. Wägenbaur, Avocat,                                               ment)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in                                                (2002/C 84/55)
Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander
and Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487,
seeking to have that judgment set aside and the claims made                                    (Language of the case: German)
by the applicants at first instance upheld, the other parties to
the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Penn-
era and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), defendants at first                                          in the European Court Reports)
instance, Lancaster BV, established in Amsterdam (Nether-
lands), represented by B. Wägenbaur, Avocat, Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı́nez
del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-              In Case P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in Frankfurt-am-
any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-                Main, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt — appeal
lished in Valdagno (Italy), French Republic, Republic of Finland,          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                      European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September
interveners at first instance, Salamander AG, established in               2000 in Case T-252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR
Kornwestheim (Germany), Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,                        II-3031, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Vienna (Austria), Alma Media Group Advertising              party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four Advertising                       Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and C. van der
SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media Center                        Hauwert), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and
Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the Court                 by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Vasak) —
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the                   the Court (Third Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting
President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)              for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                  J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 November
23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/34                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                             Article 3(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                           Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the first recital in the preamble to, and
2.    Anton Dürbeck GmbH shall pay the costs.                              Article 3(2) of, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
                                                                           on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
3.    The French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their        on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and the
      own cost.                                                            sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                           structures of excise duties on mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                  the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member
                                                                           State refusing, upon the failure to pay by the customer of a trader in
                                                                           petroleum products, to reimburse an excise duty such as the domestic
                                                                           duty on petroleum products paid by such a trader.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                          (First Chamber)
                      of 22 November 2001
in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v
                     Recettes des douanes (1)
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-                   in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling
law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for,                      from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory
holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to                                   v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of
the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-
  reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)                  (Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference
                                                                                procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                           (2002/C 84/56)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/57)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-80/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal d’Instance (District Court), Châteauroux                 In Case C-186/01 R: reference to the Court under Article 234
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
before that court between Michel SARL and Recettes des                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
douanes — on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of the             court between Alexander Dory and The Federal Republic of
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the             Germany — on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
first recital in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Council             Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                     tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the                as regards access to employment, vocational training and
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ                      promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) —
1992 L 76, p. 1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in the                 the Court has made an order on 24 October 2001 in which it
preamble to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992                 has ruled as follows:
on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,                The application for interim relief is inadmissible.
p. 12), the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a            (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
judgment on 22 November 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case C-336/16: Action brought on 15 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/27

         Action brought on 15 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-336/16)
   (2016/C 343/39)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (Agents: K. Hermann and E. Manhaeve)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI, Article 23(1), second subparagraph, and Article 22(3), in conjunction with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (1) by reason of the facts that:

                           —

                           since 2007 and up to at least 2013, the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 35 ambient air quality zones and the annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 9 ambient air quality zones, and no information has been provided to indicate that this situation has improved;

                           —

                           no appropriate measures have been incorporated in the ambient air quality programmes in order to minimise the period in which the limit values for particulate matter PM10 in the air are exceeded;

                           —

                           the daily limit values, increased by the tolerance margin, were exceeded from 1 January 2010 to 10 June 2011 in zone 14.17 — City of Radom –, in zone 14.18 — Pruszków-Żyrardów –, and in zone 16.15 — Kędzierzyn-Koźle — as well as from 1 January 2011 to 10 June 2011 in zone 30.3 — Ostrów-Kępno — and;

                           —

                           Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe was not correctly implemented;

                           —

                           order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Since 2007 the daily and annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 have been exceeded in, respectively, 35 and 9 zones. Notwithstanding this infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC, the Republic of Poland has, contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, failed to include any appropriate measures in the air quality plans in order to ensure that the periods in which limits are exceeded can be kept as short as possible.
   The lack of effectiveness of the measures concerned results, inter alia, from the period during which limit values are exceeded and from the absence of legal provisions laying down emission values for fuels used in the area of individual heat generation and emission values for individual heating installations.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-200/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014  — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București
   (Case C-200/14)
   2014/C 235/06
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silvia Georgiana Câmpean

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București

      Question referred

   On a proper construction of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 17, 20, 21(1) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice that taxes prohibited by EU law must be refunded, Recommendation Rec (2003)16 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Resolution 1787 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, is it possible that a provision such as Article XV of Emergency Government Order No 8/2014 is thereby precluded?


title: Case C-136/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 March 2013 by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, Cooperativa Mare Azzurro v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/15

         Appeal brought on 18 March 2013 by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, Cooperativa Mare Azzurro v Commission
   (Case C-136/13 P)
   2013/C 147/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl and Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi e A. Veronese, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio am C., European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul and/or vary the order under appeal, the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2013, notified to the appellants on 23 January 2013 in Case T-218/00, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl and Others against the Commission, seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants allege errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, first, with regard to the obligation to state reasons for the Commission’s decisions on State aid and, second, with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as regards the conditions set out in Article 107(1) TFEU.
   By the order under appeal, the General Court did not follow the rulings of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that the Commission’s decision ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. Even though the decision lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to point to any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
   On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to specify the ‘modalities’ for any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the matters essential for the purpose of showing whether the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraphs 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in ‘Comitato Venezia vuole vivere’.


title: Case C-375/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Consumer contracts — Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third Member State — Jurisdiction for actions brought against the bank that issued those securities)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc
      (Case C-375/13) (1)

      ((Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Consumer contracts - Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third Member State - Jurisdiction for actions brought against the bank that issued those securities))
      (2015/C 107/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Handelsgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Harald Kolassa

         Defendant: Barclays Bank plc

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who, as a consumer, has acquired a bearer bond from a third party professional, without a contract having been concluded between that consumer and the issuer of the bond, which it is for the national court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer of the bond on the basis of the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and liability for the prospectus.

                  2)

                  Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who has acquired a bearer bond from a third party, without the issuer thereof having freely assumed an obligation towards that applicant, which it is for the referring court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer and based on the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and prospectus liability.

                  3)

                  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking to put in issue the liability of the issuer of a certificate on the basis of the prospectus relating to it and of breach of other legal information obligations binding on the issuer, in so far as that liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the regulation. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, the courts where the applicant is domiciled have jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, to hear and determine such an action, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the applicant’s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts.

                  4)

                  In the context of the determination of international jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, it is not necessary to conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence in relation to disputed facts that are relevant both to the question of jurisdiction and to the existence of the claim. It is, however, permissible for the court seised to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-339/15: Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/46

         Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)
   (Case T-339/15)
   (2015/C 279/57)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 411 071

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2245/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-345/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep lodged on 27 August 2009 — J A van Delft and others v College voor zorgverzekering

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep lodged on 27 August 2009 — J A van Delft and others v College voor zorgverzekering
   (Case C-345/09)
   2010/C 11/21
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: J A van Delft and others

      Defendant: College voor zorgverzekering

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Articles 28, 28a and 33 of Regulation No 1408/71 (1), the provisions of sections 1(a) and (b) of Part R of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71, and Article 29 of Regulation No 574/72 (2) be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Article 69 of the Zvw [Zorgverzekeringswet] is incompatible therewith in so far as a pensioner who in principle has entitlements under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 is obliged to report to the Cvz [College voor Zorgverzekering], and a contribution must be deducted from that person’s pension even if no registration has taken place under Article 29 of Regulation No 574/09?

               2.

               Should Article 39 EC or Article 18 EC be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as Article 69 of the Zvw is incompatible therewith in so far as a citizen of the EU who in principle has entitlements under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 is obliged to report to the Cvz, and a contribution must be deducted from that citizen’s pension even if no registration has taken place under Article 29 of Regulation 574/09?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 323, 13.12.1996, p. 38)

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 323, 13.12.1996, p. 38)


title: Case C-593/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Alliance One International, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-25/06: Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/41

      Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Alliance One International, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-25/06: Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission
      (Case C-593/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/78)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 in case T-25/06 Alliance One v. Commission; and, in case the state of the proceedings so permits,

                  —

                  annul Article 1(1) of the Contested Decision, in so far it relates to SCC, Dimon and Alliance One; and accordingly

                  —

                  reduce the fines imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last fiscal year; and

                  —

                  reduce the fine imposed on Transcatab and Dimon Italia (Mindo) as the multiplying factor is not applicable anymore since it was based on the group size;

                  —

                  in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Alliance One before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Alliance One seeks: (i) the annulment, in its entirety, of the Contested Judgment; and, in addition, (ii) the annulment of Article 1(1) of the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2005 in case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy, in so far it relates to Standard Commercial Corp. (‘SCC’), Dimon Inc. (‘Dimon’) and Alliance One; and accordingly (iii) a reduction of the fines imposed on Transcatab S.p.A. (‘Transcatab’) and Dimon Italia S.r.l. (‘Dimon Italia’; now Mindo) so that the fines do not exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last fiancial year; or alternatively (iv) a reduction of the fine imposed on Trancatab and Dimon Italia (now Mindo) as the multiplying factor is not applicable; (v) in any event, to order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Alliance One before the General Court.
      Alliance One submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

                  —

                  Firstly the General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The failure to conduct a concrete and full analysis of the relevant evidence produced by the Appellant in order to rebut the presumption of decisive influence and, consequently, to adequately substantiate its reasoning for the rejecting that evidence made the presumption of exercise of control all but rebuttable and this amounted to a breach of the principles of presumption of innocence, legality and individual liability.

                  —

                  Secondly, the General Court, by rejecting the evidence offered by Alliance One, misapplied the general principles relating to the burden of proof and the procedural rules of evidence and, in any event, breached the Appellant's right of defence.


title: Action brought on 31 January 1997 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-42/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97               EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 74/ 17
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the                             under Community law, a time-limit which starts to run
       costs of the proceedings.                                                before the correct and complete transposition into
                                                                                national law of the Directive conferring that right
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             compatible with Community law ?
Infringement of the obligations under Articles 48 , 52 and                 2. Is it compatible with Community law to provide a
59 of the EC Treaty and under Article 4 of Council                              party whose rights are recognized as having been
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 4 of Council Directive                         infringed, and to whom repayment of the sums
73/148/EEC : the starting point is the freedom of                               claimed is granted, with a remedial procedure under
movement of persons enshrined in Community law and                              which the rules as to quantum differ from, and
the principle of 'national treatment'. Infringements by                         compare unfavourably with, those laid down in
German nationals of paragraph 5 ( 1 ) No 1 and 2 of the                         respect of actions for repayment between private
PersonalausweisG are comparable to infringements by                             individuals, and are substantially determined by a
non-German Community nationals of paragraph 12a ( 1 )                           measure enacted by the same State as that which
No 2 of the AufenthG/EWG. This comparableness is                                infringed the injured party's rights by failing to fulfil
substantiated not only by the fact that Article 9 ( 1 ) of                      its obligations ?
Directive 68/360/EEC and Article 7 of Directive 73/ 148/EEC
expressly refer to identity cards for nationals . Since the lack
of a valid identity card, passport or other papers listed in
paragraph 12a ( 2 ) of the AufenthG/EWG does not remove
the right of residence resulting from Community law, in each
case, both that of a non-German Community national and                     Action brought on 31 January 1997 by the European
that of a German national, the obligation to prove one's                      Parliament against the Council of the European Union
identity also concerns an, in principle, equivalent
administrative rule with — in the case of a non-German                                            ( Case C-42/97)
Community national — purely declaratory effect in regard to                                         ( 97/C 74/35 )
the Community-law residence permit.
Consequently, neither a different standard of fault nor a                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
different scale of fines is permissible .                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 31 January 1997 by the European
                                                                           Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Norbert
( : ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485 .                       Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 172 , 28 . 6 . 1973 , p. 14.
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Registry of the General Secretariat of
                                                                           the European Parliament, Tower Building.
                                                                           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the
di Genova by orders of that court of 19, 21 and 23                              Council 's decision of 21 November 1996 on the
November 1996 in the cases before it between 1 . Fiducia                       adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the
ria Internazionale Srl; 2 . Giolfo e C. Srl; 3 . Ligure Piemon                 linguistic diversity of the Community in the
tese Società d'Intermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4. So.Me.Fi.                      information society ( MLIS ),
Srl; 5 . Saia Srl; 6. Svin Servizi Spa and Amministrazione
                      delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                   ( Cases C-25/97 and C-30/97 )
                              ( 97/C 74/34 )                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     The aim of the contested act, and the principal and
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di Ge                     definitive subject of its contents, is the promotion of
nova ( Genoa District Court) Sezione Prima Civile ( First                  linguistic diversity. The Community languages represent,
Civil Division ) of 19, 21 and 23 November 1996 , which                    in their diversity and richness, a cultural asset of the
were received at the Court Registry on 22 January 1997,                    greatest value . By means of the MLIS programme, the
for a preliminary ruling in the cases before it between 1 .                citizens of the Community will be able to improve their
Fiduciaria Internazionale Sri; 2. Giolfo e C. Sri; 3 . Ligure              knowledge of the cultures of the other Member States,
Piemontese Societa d'lntermediazione Mobiliare SpA; 4 .                    which is an objective expressly envisaged by the first
So.Me.Fi . Sri; 5 . Saia Sri; 6 . Svin Servizi SpA and Ammini             indent of Article 128 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The contested
strazione delle Finanze dello Stato on the following                       act cannot therefore be adopted solely on the basis of
questions:                                                                 Article 130 of the Treaty, without also being based on
                                                                           Article 128 .
1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
       initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising


title: Case T-394/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/50

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)
   (Case T-394/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in case R 861/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’, for goods in class 9

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 747361 of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 1552528, No 1102971, No 1552529 and No 747362 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; Community trade mark registrations No 2361087 and No 2347193 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9 and 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of this Article; violation by the Board of Appeal of a general principle of EU law regarding equal treatment and violation of Article 1 of the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as violation of Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.


title: Case C-71/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) — United Kingdom) — East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Articles 5 and 6 — Public access to environmental information — Charge for supplying environmental information — Reasonable amount — Costs of maintaining a database and overheads — Access to justice — Administrative and judicial review of a decision imposing a charge)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) — United Kingdom) — East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner
   (Case C-71/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Articles 5 and 6 - Public access to environmental information - Charge for supplying environmental information - Reasonable amount - Costs of maintaining a database and overheads - Access to justice - Administrative and judicial review of a decision imposing a charge))
   (2015/C 389/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: East Sussex County Council

      Defendant: Information Commissioner

      Other parties: Property Search Group, Local Government Association

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information may not include any part of the cost of maintaining a database, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for that purpose by the public authority, but may include the overheads attributable to the time spent by the staff of the public authority on answering individual requests for information, properly taken into account in fixing the charge, provided that the total amount of the charge does not exceed a reasonable amount.

               2.

               Article 6 of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the reasonableness of a charge for supplying a particular type of environmental information is the subject only of limited administrative and judicial review as provided for in English law, provided that the review is carried out on the basis of objective elements and, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, relates to the question whether the public authority making the charge has complied with the conditions in Article 5(2) of that directive, which is for the referring tribunal to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case F-6/16: Action brought on 29 January 2016 — ZZ and Others v EEAS

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/38

         Action brought on 29 January 2016 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
   (Case F-6/16)
   (2016/C 145/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the applicants’ salary slips in respect of March 2015 and those drawn up afterwards in so far as they apply the EEAS’ decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions from 15 % to 10 %.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare the decision of the EEAS Chief Operating Officer dated 23 February 2015 inapplicable to the applicants;

               —

               as a result, annul their salary slips in respect of March 2015, and those drawn up afterwards in so far as those salary slips apply an ALC of 10 %;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-170/16: Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/35

         Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission
   (Case T-170/16)
   (2016/C 243/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, S.L. (Llodio, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, D. Armesto Macías and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               admit the application and the grounds for annulment set out therein;

               —

               uphold the grounds for annulment set out in the application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the initiation of a formal procedure as set out in Article 108(2) TFEU so that the applicant may exercise its procedural rights and the Commission may formally resolve, in accordance with the law, its doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission refusing to declare compatible certain aids received by Guardian which was notifed to the Spanish authorities by a letter from the Commission dated 15 July 2015, entitled ‘Tax matters in the Basque Country (Álava) — Informal communication regarding additional submissions in connection to compatibility with the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid’, and notified to the applicant by the Spanish authorities on 19 February 2016.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law.
               By its main plea the applicant submits that in adopting a decision declaring an individual aid award to be incompatible with the internal market, the Commission infringed Article 250 TFEU and the principle of collegiality in so far as that decision was not adopted by the College of Commissioners, as well as infringing Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4 and 13 of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) in so far as it failed to initiate the formal procedure prior to the adoption of that decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law.
               By its second plea, relied on in the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in so far as the Commission decision erred in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-380/04: Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/46

         Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-380/04)
   (2004/C 300/90)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Ioannis Terezakis, Brussels (Belguim), represented by L. Defalque, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision in the form of a letter dated 12 July 2004 and received by the applicant on 16 July 2004 refusing to the latter access to the main contract, the sub-contracts, the costs of the construction items, the invoices and the final report relating to the construction of the Spata airport;

               —

               Order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Regarding the Commission's refusal to allow him access to the main contract, the applicant invokes first of all a manifest error in law and fact, in that the Commission did not make clear whether the author of the document, Athens International Airport, is a third party other than a Member State or whether it is an authority of the Greek State and consequently whether, paragraph 4 of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) or paragraph 5 of the same article should apply. The applicant also submits that the Commission provided no evidence that it has considered granting access without consulting the third party. He also considers that by opting for an extensive interpretation of the notion of protection of commercial interests the Commission has violated the principle of the widest possible access to documents, set out in Article 1 (a) of Regulation 1049/2001.
   In connexion with the same document, the applicant also claims that the Commission has violated Article 4 paragraph 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Articles 5 paragraphs 3 and 4 of Decision 2001/937 (2) by failing to assess the justification advanced by the third party for refusing to consent to disclosure, and failing to reveal to the applicant elements of that assessment. The applicant also argues that the Commission violated Article 4 paragraph 6 of Regulation 1049/2001 by failing to consider the possibility of granting partial access and that, finally, it has violated its duty to state reasons for its decision.
   By its contested decision the Commission also refused access to the invoices and final report on the completion of the airport on the grounds that they are examined in the framework of an audit commissioned by DG Regional Policy and not yet completed. Concerning this part of the Commission's Decision the applicant submits that the Commission misinterpreted Article 4 paragraph 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 and committed a manifest error of fact in considering that the audit in question falls under this provision. He also invokes a violation of the principle of the widest possible access as well as violation of Annex V to the Commission decision granting assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which provides that Member States concerned shall ensure open and easy access to relevant information requested by the public. He also submits that the Commission failed to consider partial access.
   Concerning the Commission's refusal to grant access to the costs of the construction items the applicant submits that the Commission mistakenly considered that this application did not constitute an application for access to documents and thus violated Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.
   Finally, the applicant invokes a manifest lack of good faith and a violation of the principle of good administration by the Commission, which failed to indicate, in its contested decision, when it expected to be in possession of the sub-contracts.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43 - 48.

      (2)  OJ L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94 - 98.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-323/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hydrowatt SARL (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Termination — Recovery of sums advanced — Interest)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 275/21
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                      of 25 September 2003
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
in Case C-170/02 P: Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH and
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             in Case C-323/02: Commission of the European Communi-
(Appeal — Action for a declaration of failure to act —                                           ties v Hydrowatt SARL (1)
Competition — Complaint — Control of concentrations —
Definition of a position for the purposes of Article 232 EC
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                             (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Termination — Recovery of sums advanced — Interest)
                         (2003/C 275/36)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                      (2003/C 275/37)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-170/02 P, Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, estab-                                     in the European Court Reports)
lished in Innsbruck (Austria), J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co.
KG, established in Linz (Austria), Styria Medien AG, established
in Graz (Austria), Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH,
established in Bregenz (Austria), Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH, established in Schwarz-
ach (Austria), ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, established            In Case C-323/02, Commission of the European Communities
in Vienna (Austria), and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-                   (Agent: H. Støvlbaek assisted by E. Cabau) v Hydrowatt SARL,
Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Salzburg (Austria),                established in Lyon (France): Application by the Commission
represented by M. Krüger, Rechtsanwalt: Appeal against the                   under Article 238 EC for recovery of the outstanding balance
order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                of an advance paid by the applicant to the defendant under
ties (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2002 in Case T-3/02                         Contract No HY 134/87 FR on the completion of a project
Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser and Others v Commission [2002]                    receiving financial support pursuant to Council Regulation
ECR II-1473, seeking to have that order set aside, the other                 (EEC) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985 on the promotion,
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                   by financial support, of demonstration projects and industrial
Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  pilot projects in the energy field (OJ 1985 L 350, p. 29), the
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the                 Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha                   the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,                A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in                     judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it:
which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  1.    Orders Hydrowatt SARL to pay to the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities the sum of EUR 25 109, plus
2.    Orders Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, J. Wimmer Medien                     contractual interest of EUR 23 422,91;
      GmbH & Co. KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-
      Gesellschaft mbH, Eugen Ruβ Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und
      Druckerei GmbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH and              2.    Orders Hydrowatt SARL to pay the costs.
      ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
      to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 February 2004 In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   19 February 2004
   In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 - Proof of export - Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 - Correction of an export licence - Obvious inaccuracy - Principle of proportionality)
   (2004/C 94/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-329/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc, and Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The proof provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996, has not been supplied in respect of a quantity of C sugar actually exported where that quantity exceeds the total quantity stated on the export licence or where the export takes place after the period of that licence's validity has expired. The fact that the C sugar concerned did actually leave the Community's customs territory is not conclusive in that respect. The same is true where the customs authorities have endorsed the licence extract for a quantity applied for, but which does not reflect the manufacturer's real intentions having regard to a customs declaration in a corrected form corresponding to the amount actually exported.

               2.

               On a proper construction of Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995, the competent authority is not permitted to carry out a correction of the tonnage stated on the export licence or extract therefrom where there is no inaccuracy in the entries made in those documents themselves.

               3.

               Examination of Article 24 of Regulation No 3719/88, as amended by Regulation No 1199/95, has disclosed nothing which might affect its validity.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings neither the national court nor the competent authorities enjoy any discretion to vary downwards the charge to be paid pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81, as amended by Regulation No 158/96.

               5.

               Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81 as amended is to be interpreted as applying to an export of C sugar effected after the corresponding export licence has expired, if the export was made after the expiry of the corresponding export licence.

      (1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2003 in Case T-12/01: Cristina Ascatigno Battistella v Commission of the European Communities (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff — Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 1 April 2003                                                              of 1 April 2003
in Case T-12/01: Cristina Ascatigno Battistella v Com-                      in Case T-13/01: Daniele Riva v Commission of the
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                               European Communities (1)
(Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-                     (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance                   bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second                       with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —                  renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
             Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)                                         Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                          (2003/C 135/46)                                                              (2003/C 135/47)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-12/01: Cristina Ascatigno Battistella, a former                   In Case T-13/01: Daniele Riva, a former member of the
member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the                      temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities, residing in Verghera di Samarate                      ties, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by B. Nascimbene
(Italy), represented by B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi,                    and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for service in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                 Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clo-                     ties (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal Ferro) —
tuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal Ferro) — application for annul-                 application for annulment of the decision of 28 September
ment of the decision of 28 September 2000 by which the                      2000 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts
authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment                     of employment rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant
rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant seeking a                    seeking a declaration that the employment relationship which
declaration that the employment relationship which bound                    bound her to the Commission was a relationship of indefinite
her to the Commission was a relationship of indefinite period               period under a contract as a member of the temporary staff
under a contract as a member of the temporary staff pursuant                pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of
to Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of other                    other Servants, renewed on more than one occasion with the
Servants, renewed on more than one occasion with the effects                effects referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8 of those
referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions          conditions — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                  composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the Chamber,
R. García-Valdecasas, President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and                P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                    order on 1 April 2003, the operative part of which is as
1 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                    follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                              2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
( 1) OJ 2001 C 95.                                                          (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.