title: Case F-13/12: Action brought on 3 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/32

         Action brought on 3 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-13/12)
   2012/C 138/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this action to be admissible;

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the head of unit of the ‘Recruitment and end of service’ unit within the Directorate HR.B of the DG Human Resources and Security, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the applicant’s contract;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted by the AECE, rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

               —

               reinstate the applicant in the post which she occupied within DG DIGIT with an extension of her contract in accordance with the requirements of the regulations;

               —

               alternatively, if the above application to be reinstated is not upheld, order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally and ex aequo et bono estimated at the difference between the remuneration which she would have received as a member of the temporary staff of the Commission if her contract had been renewed, and the unemployment allowances currently received, for a period of two years (corresponding to the period of renewal provided for under Article 8 of the CEOS), with the addition of late payment interest at the legal rate in the period concerned;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay a fixed sum provisionally and ex aequo et bono fixed at EUR 5000, as compensation for non-material damage, with the addition of late payment interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-182/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/9

         Action brought on 22 April 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-182/05)
   (2005/C 155/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Commission's Legal Service and Bernhard Schima, a member of that service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not ensuring publication by the Dimosia Epikhirisi Elektrismou of separate annual accounts for its activities of lignite mining and electricity production, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of Directive 96/92/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               After the Commission received a complaint on the matter and on the basis of information from Greece (various letters from the Ministry of Development and from the Energy Regulatory Authority) concerning the requirement that separate accounts should be published by the integrated company ‘Dimosia Epikhirisi Elektrismou’ [Public Electricity Undertaking] (DEE), in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ 1997 L 27 p. 20), the Commission formed the view that Greece had infringed the provisions of that article.

               2.

               The Commission considers that the publication of common accounts for DEE's activities of electricity production and lignite mining and the failure to separate those two activities constitute an infringement of the requirements of Article 14(3) of Directive 96/92/EC,

               3.

               In the Commission's view, despite the existence of DEE's internal accounting system under which, as is required, its lignite mining activity is separated from its electricity production activity, such separation needs also to be reflected in DEE's published accounts. The Commission points out that the efforts of the Greek authorities have not so far succeeded in bringing about the requisite result. The submission of information to the Regulatory Authority as regards separate accounts does not suffice to satisfy the requirement of publication.

      (1)  OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2002 in Case T-87/97 DEP, Starway SA v Council of the European Union (Taxation of Costs)

text:
C 156/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         29.6.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: A. Fierstra
                                                                           and J. van Bakel) against Commission of the European
                        of 10 January 2002                                 Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the decisions of the Commission
                                                                           C(1999)2140 final (REC 8/98) and C(1999)2143 final (REC 9/
in Case T-87/97 DEP, Starway SA v Council of the                           98), of 19 July 1999, finding that it was appropriate, first, to
                        European Union (1)                                 make post clearance recovery and, secondly, to refuse to
                                                                           refund duties in respect of the importation of television sets
                        (Taxation of Costs)                                from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                           composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts, and J. Azizi,
                                                                           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 April 2002, the
                          (2002/C 156/45)                                  operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
                                                                           2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
In Case T-87/97 DEP, Starway SA, established in Luynes
(France), represented by J.-F. Bellis and P. De Baere, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: R. Tanca and S. Marquardt),                    (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
supported by Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany) — application for
taxation of the costs to be paid to the applicant by the
defendent following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 26 September 2000 in Case T-80/97 Starway v Council
[2000] ECR II-3099 — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of M. Jaeger,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and
J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
10 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 14 January 2002
The total costs payable to the applicant by the Council in Case T-80/
97 are fixed at EUR 58 031,87.
                                                                           in Case T-84/01, Association contre l’heure d’été (ACHE),
                                                                           formerly Association contre l’horaire d’été (ACHE) v
                                                                           European Parliament and Council of the European
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                                               Union (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Directive 2000/84/EC — Summer-
                                                                           time arrangements — Locus standi — Association —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          (2002/C 156/47)
                          of 9 April 2002                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-353/99: N.V. Calberson Belgium v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Case T-84/01, Association contre l’heure d’été (ACHE),
(Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from                formerly Association contre l’horaire d’été (ACHE), established
                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)                            at Marly-le-Roy (France), represented by C. Lepage, lawyer,
                                                                           against European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
                                                                           M. Goméz-Leal) and Council of the European Union (Agent:
                          (2002/C 156/46)                                  A. Lopes Sabino) — application for annulment of Directive
                                                                           2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements (OJ 2001
                                                                           L 31, p. 21) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber,
                                                                           J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
In Case T-353/99: N.V. Calberson Belgium, represented by                   made an order on 14 January 2002, the operative part of
L. Gheysen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             which is as follows:


title: Case C-254/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary (Hungary) lodged on 25 May 2011 — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Shomodi Oskar

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary (Hungary) lodged on 25 May 2011 — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Shomodi Oskar
   (Case C-254/11)
   2011/C 232/29
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   The Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége

      Defendant: Shomodi Oskar

      Questions referred

               1.

               With particular regard to Article 2(a) and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 (‘Local Border Traffic Regulation’), is the provision in Article 5 of that Regulation, which permits an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months, to be interpreted in such a way that the Regulation allows multiple exits and entries, and an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months on the basis of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries under Article 13 in such a way that a border resident in possession of a local border traffic certificate may interrupt the uninterrupted stay prior to the expiry of the three-month period available for the stay, and then be entitled to a further uninterrupted stay of three months once he has crossed the border again?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to the first question is yes, may an exit and entry occurring on the same day or on consecutive days be regarded as an interruption of an uninterrupted stay under Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation?

               3.

               In the event that the answer to the first question is yes, but the answer to the second question is no, what time interval or other examination criterion needs to be taken into consideration to establish an interruption of an uninterrupted stay, under Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation?

               4.

               In the event that the answer to the first question is no, might the provision of Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation which permits an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months be interpreted in such a way that the time elapsing over multiple exits and entries must be counted together, and as meaning that, in view of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 4 June 1985 (Schengen Implementing Convention, OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19; ‘SIC’), or other rules relating to Schengen law, if the total number of days exceeds 93 days (three months), the local border traffic permit does not provide entitlement to any further stay within six months of the date of first entry?

               5.

               In the event that the answer to the fourth question is yes, must multiple exits and entries occurring on the same day, or a single exit and entry on the same day, also be taken into account for the total and, if so, using what counting method?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention (OJ 2006 L 405, p. 1).


C 278/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema             Communities, represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard
di Cassazione by order of that court of 22 May 1998 in              Mongin, both of its Legal Service, with an address for
the case of Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v.          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                     Mario Maraldi SpA                              Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                      (Case C-288/98)
                        (98/C 278/60)                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
European Communities by an order of the Corte Suprema                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 22 May                    Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 July               second general system for the recognition of
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Istituto                  professional education and training to supplement
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v. Mario Maraldi SpA,                Directive 89/48/EEC (1), or by not giving notice of the
on the following questions:                                             necessary      implementing    measures     within    the
                                                                        prescribed period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                        fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that Directive
                                                                        and the EC Treaty,
1. Does a provision of national law, which exempts
    particular categories of undertakings (which, although
    insolvent, are not being wound up and are enjoying
    favourable treatment in the form of suspension of               Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    the claims against them, including those of public
    authorities, and authorisation, granted by a
    discretionary administrative measure, to continue in            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    business) from the payment of penalties incurred
    through non-payment of social security contributions
    constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92?
                                                                    The Member States are required by the binding character
                                                                    of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
2. Does such a measure, considered in isolation or in               Directives into national law before the expiry of the
    conjunction with the special regime already enjoyed by          period laid down for that purpose and to communicate
    the undertaking, constitute new State aid or the                those measures immediately to the Commission. That
    alteration of existing aid which is therefore covered by        period expired on 18 June 1994 without the Hellenic
    the obligation of notification as provided for by               Republic having communicated to the Commission
    Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty?                                 provisions transposing the Directive at issue into national
                                                                    law.
3. If that is the case, what are the consequences of                (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.
    non-notification of that measure to the European
    Commission as regards the powers of the national
    court and, in particular, does the illegality of the aid
    allow the court to refuse to apply the provision in
    question?
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-322/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/62)
Action brought on 27 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                    By order of 6 May 1998 the President of the Fifth
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
                      (Case C-289/98)                               Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                                                                    of Case C-322/97: Commission of the European
                        (98/C 278/61)                               Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 27 July 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-534/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Schenker v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/26

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Schenker v Commission
   (Case T-534/11)
   2011/C 355/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schenker AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Von Hammerstein, B. Beckmann and C. Munding, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the defendant of 3 August 2011 (SG.B/MKu/psi-Ares[2001]);

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea: lack of specific and case-by-case examination of the documents
               First, the Commission has not carried out a specific and case-by-case examination of the documents named in the application for access. According to the applicant, the Commission should not have been allowed to rely on a general presumption of the grounds for refusal of access. By doing so it disregarded the principles developed in the case-law concerning access to documents and the importance of the fundamental right of access to documents laid down in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               2.

               Second plea: manifest errors in the application of the exceptions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               Second, the Commission made manifest errors when applying the exceptions laid down in Regulation No 1049/2001. By applying the exceptions too broadly, the Commission disregarded the principles developed in the case-law concerning access to documents and the importance of the fundamental right of access to documents laid down in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
               In the light of fundamental rights and of the principle of transparency and the rule of law, the applicant should be granted a right of access to the documents which is as extensive as possible.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality
               Third, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by not weighing the exceptions — approved by it in error — or at least not weighing them objectively, against the public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. The Commission therefore disregarded the fact that the public interest in the disclosure of the documents clearly outweighed keeping them secret.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
               Fourth, the Commission disregarded the fact that the applicant in any case enjoys a right — guaranteed under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — to at least partial access to the documents applied for. The Commission deprives the fundamental right of access to documents and Regulation No 1049/2011 of practical effect by refusing all access whatsoever.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-9/93: Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream P Relevant market P Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties P Comfort letter P Negative clearance P Duration of agreements P Block exemption P Prohibition of concluding exclusive dealing agreements in the future)

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/ 19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 8 June 1995                                                           of 8 June 1995
in Case T-9/93 : Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v.                   in Case T-459/93 : Siemens SA v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (')                                           European Communities ( 1 )
(Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements for                       (State aid — General aid — Recovery — Interest —
ice-cream — Relevant market — Possible barriers to entry to                  Admissibility of the application for leave to intervene)
the market by third parties — Comfort letter — Negative                                              ( 95/C 208 /40 )
clearance — Duration ofagreements — Block exemption —
Prohibition of concluding exclusive dealing agreements in
                              the future)
                           ( 95/C 208/39 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-9/93 : Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG,                     In Case T-459/93 : Siemens SA, established at Brussels,
established in Nuremberg ( Germany ), represented by Ulrich              represented initially by Vincent Piessevaux and
Scholz, Rechtsanwalt, Nuremberg, and Rainer Bechtold,                    Jean-Jacques van Raemdonck and subsequently, in the oral
Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for service in                  procedure, by Jean-Jacques van Raemdonck and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 8 Rue                     Dominique Lagasse, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Zithe v. Commission of the European Communities                          service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1
(Agents : Bernd Langeheine and Alexander Böhlke ),                       Rue Goethe, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany
supported by Mars GmbH, established in Viersen                           ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Holger Wissel ), v. Commission of
( Germany ),      represented         by Jochim         Sedemund,        the European Communities ( Agents : initially, Sean Van
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and by John Pheasant, Solicitor,                  Raepenbusch and Daniel Calleja and subsequently, in the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                oral procedure, Daniel Calleja and Jean-Paul Keppenne ) —
of Michel Molitor, 14a Rue des Bains — application for the               application for the annulment of Articles 1 (c ) and 2 of
annulment      of   Commission         Decision   93/405/EEC     of
                                                                         Commission Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992
23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                    concerning aid provided by the Brussels Regional
Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Schöller Lebensmittel               Authorities ( Belgium ) in favour of the activities of Siemens
GmbH & Co KG ( IV/31.533 and IV/34.072 ( 2 )) the Court                  SA in the data-processing and telecommunications
of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),              sectors ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M.
A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H.                Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
which it :
                                                                         8 June 1995 , in which it:
1 . annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/405/EEC
      of 23 December 1 992 relating to a proceeding pursuant
      to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Schöller                   1 . dismisses the application;
      Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG (IV/31.533 and
      IV/34.072);
2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;                             2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs;
3 . orders the applicant to bear all the costs of               the
      proceedings, including those in respect of                the      3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own
      application for interim measures and those of             the            costs .
      intervener, with the exception of one-quarter of          the
      costs incurred by the defendant;
4 . orders the defendant to bear one-quarter of its own                  ( ] ) OJ No C 322 , 9 . 12 . 1992 .
      costs .                                                            ( 2 ) OJ No L 288 , 3 . 10 . 1992, p . 25 .
(') OJ No C 62, 4 . 3 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 26 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .


title: Action brought on 27 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-256/95)

text:
No C 248/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
2 . If so, is a provision of national law compatible with the                 — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
      Community legislation referred to above which, where                        setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      there is a reduction in the heads of livestock raised                       be met by fruit plant propagating material and fruit
      during the intermediate period between the end of the                       plants intended for fruit production, pursuant to
      reference period and the beginning of the period of the                     Council Directive 92/34/EEC ( 4 ),
      undertaking, not only excludes those animals from the
      aid but also provides that they must be excluded from                   — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993
      the calculation of the minimum 20 % reduction in                            setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      output between the reference period and the period of                       be met by ornamental plant propagating material
      the undertaking, which is a prerequisite for the grant of                   and ornamental plants pursuant to Council
      the aid ( with the result, in particular, that the aid is not               Directive 91 /682/EEC ( 5 ),
      payable even in respect of the actual reduction in
       livestock envisaged in the period of the undertaking,                  — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 23 June 1993
      where that reduction is less than 20 % of the average                       setting out the schedules indicating the conditions
       number of livestock raised in the reference period )?                      to be met by vegetable propagating and planting
                                                                                material , other than seed pursuant to Council
f 1 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                        Directive 92/33/EEC ( 6 ),
( 2 ) OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p . 28 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 361 , 29 . 12 . 1988 , p . 13 .                                 and/or by failing to communicate them to the
                                                                              Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under the penultimate articles of those
                                                                              Directives and under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Action brought on 27 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      European Communities against the French Republic                   The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         similar to those in Case C-252/95 ( 7 ); the deadlines for
                           ( Case C-256/95 )
                                                                         transposition into national law set by the Directives expired
                             ( 95/C 248/16 )                             on 1 January 1994 .
An action against the French Republic was brought before                 (>)  OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      (2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 .
27 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                           (3 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
 Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                     (4)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                         (<)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 9 .
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      (*)  OJ No L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .
the office of Mr Gomez de la Gruz, Wagner Centre,                        (7)  See p. 7 of this Official Journal .
 Kirchberg.
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
  1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
       comply with                                                       Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand (2ème Chambre) by
                                                                         judgment of that court of 27 June 1 995 in the case of Gérard
       — Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on                  Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du
           public health and animal health problems relating to                                       Puy-de-Dôme
           the killing of wild game and the placing on the                                         ( Case C-257/95 )
           market of the wild-game meat ( ! ),
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/17 )
        — Council Directive 92/ 117/EEC of 17 December
            1992 concerning measures for protection against               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
            animals and products of animal origin in order to            Administratif Clermont-Ferrand              (2eme    Chambre)
            prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and                ( Administrative Court of Clermont-Ferrand, Second
            intoxications (2 ),                                           Chamber) of 27 June 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 28 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
        — Council Directive 92/ 118/EEC of 17 December                    of Gerard Bresle v. Prefet de la Region Auvergne ( Prefect of
            1992 laying down animal health and public health              the Auvergne Region) and Prefet du Puy-de-Dome (Prefect
            requirements governing trade in and imports into the          of Puy-de-Dome ) on the following question :
            Community of products not subject to the said
            requirements laid down in specific Community rules            Can the method of calculating the power-rating for
            referred to in Annex A ( I) to Directive 89/662/EEC           administrative purposes of vehicles under the Circular with
            and, as regards pathogens, to Directive                       retrospective statutory force of the Secretary of State for
            90/425/EEC ( 3 ),                                             Public Works, Transport and Tourism of 28 December


title: Case C-102/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Contas (Portugal) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores v Ministério Público

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Contas (Portugal) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores v Ministério Público
   (Case C-102/17)
   (2017/C 151/27)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Contas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretaria Regional de Saúde dos Açores

      Defendant: Ministério Público

      Question referred

   Must Article 58(4) of Directive No 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that described [that is, Article 40(3) and (5)(c) of Regional Legislative Decree No 27/2015/A of 29 December 2015], which, in the area of public procurement, allows a geographical criterion, requiring three public contracts to have been performed previously in the same autonomous region, to be imposed as a qualifying criterion?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC

      OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal, London, by order of that Court of 13 May 1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (Case C-357/98)

text:
C 358/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
    majority of cases, select only a Belgian national                   considered (see paragraph 255 of the United Kingdom
    residing for a certain length of time in Belgium, thus              Immigration Rules, House of Commons Paper 395), as
    allowing those authorities to carry out the screening'             compared to a requirement of 12 months residence
    which they deem necessary, but not a person who has                 before such application can be made, as is applied to
    acted as a manager of a comparable undertaking in                   spouses of the United Kingdom nationals and spouses
    another Member State of the European Union. In                      of those present and settled in the United Kingdom
    those circumstances, the requirement of residence                   (paragraph 287 of the United Kingdom Immigration
    constitutes indirect discrimination which could only be             Rules, House of Commons Paper 395) constitute
    justified under Article 56 of the EC Treaty. The                    unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 7(2)
    Commission considers, however, that the restriction                 Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68?
    derives from administrative considerations which are
    not such as to justify it.
                                                                   (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                       1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                       Community (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2 [SE SER1 68(II)
Ð Restriction on freedom of movement for workers                       p. 475]).
    (Article 48 of the EC Treaty):
    The requirement of residence in Belgium prevents
    workers residing in other countries from being
    engaged by a security firm or a security systems firm,
    or being employed for the purposes of an internal
    security service in an undertaking in Belgium. In              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
    response to the argument alleging the need for control,        London, by order of that Court of 13 May 1998, in the
    the Commission reiterates the arguments which it put           case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
    forward in connection with Article 52 of the EC                  Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom
    Treaty.
                                                                                (Case C-357/98)
(1) OJ C 334, 9.12.1993, p. 3.                                                             (98/C 358/19)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Court of
                                                                   Appeal, London, of 13 May 1998, which was received at
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration              the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary
Adjudicator, by order of the Adjudicator of 25 September           ruling in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
1998, in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State         for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu
                  for the Home Department                          Yiadom, in the following questions:
                       (Case C-356/98)
                        (98/C 358/18)                              1. Do both Article 8 and Article 9 of Council Directive
                                                                        64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination
                                                                        of special measures concerning the movement and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                     grounds of public policy, public security or public
Adjudicator of 25 September 1998, which was received at                 health (OJ English Special Edition 1963Ð4, p. 117
the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary                 and OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 850.) apply to decisions
ruling in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State             concerning entry into the territory of a Member State,
for the Home Department, on the following questions:                    or are decisions concerning entry covered solely by the
                                                                        provisions of Article 8?
1. Does the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain
    in the United Kingdom and the right to have that               2. If the answer to the first question is that Article 8, but
    application considered constitute a social advantage'              not Article 9, of Directive 64/221/EEC applies to
    within the meaning of Article 7(2), Regulation (EEC)                decisions concerning entry into the territory of a
    No 1612/68 (1)?                                                     Member State, are the requirements of Article 8
                                                                        satisfied by provisions of national law which grant to
                                                                        the national of a Member State who is refused entry to
2. Does the requirement imposed on the spouses of EC                    another Member State on grounds of public policy a
    nationals to have been resident in the United Kingdom               right of appeal to a court of law which may only be
    for four years before an application for indefinite leave           exercised once that person is no longer physically
    to remain in the United Kingdom may be made and                     present in the Member State concerned?
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/11
3. For the purposes of Article 8 and/or 9 of Directive              Action brought on 2 October 1998 by the Commission of
    64/221/EEC, where national law:                                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-358/98)
                                                                                (98/C 358/20)
    Ð permits the competent authorities, as an alternative
         to detention, to grant temporary admission' to a
         national of another Member State who does not
         hold a current residence permit onto the territory         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
         of the host Member State, without granting that            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
         person entry' under national law into the Member          2 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
         State concerned; and                                       Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Maria
                                                                    Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Ð permits the competent authorities to keep the
         person concerned on temporary admission until
         they have completed their enquiries as to whether          The applicant claims that the Court should:
         or not the facts justify measures to exclude that
         person from the Member State on grounds of
         public policy,                                             Ð declare that, by making the provision of cleansing,
                                                                         disinfection,   disinfestation,  rodent-control     and
                                                                         sanitation services by operators established in other
                                                                         Member States subject to registration under Article 1
                                                                         of Law No 82/1994 of 25 January 1994, in
    is a subsequent decision to refuse entry' to that person            accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that Law, the
    and to exclude her from the territory of the Member                  Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    State on grounds of public policy a decision                         under Article 59 of the EC Treaty;
    concerning entry into the territory of a Member State,
    or a decision concerning expulsion from the territory
    of a Member State?
                                                                    Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings.
4. Is the answer to question 3 different if national law            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    permits the competent national authorities to lift
    employment restrictions initially imposed as a
    condition of such temporary admission, and those
                                                                    According to the Commission, the obligation on
    authorities do so after the decision is taken to refuse
                                                                    undertakings to register and the substantial penalties
    admission to the national territory, pending the
                                                                    provided for failure to comply with that obligation
    determination of judicial review proceedings to set
                                                                    amount to a clear breach of Article 59 of the Treaty,
    aside that refusal?
                                                                    which provides for the abolition of all restrictions on the
                                                                    freedom to provide services within the Community. By
                                                                    providing penal sanctions for the exercise of cleansing
                                                                    activities by non-registered undertakings, by providing
                                                                    that contracts concluded with such undertakings are void,
5. Is the answer to question 3 capable of being affected            and by providing for administrative penalties to be
    by the length of time taken a) to refuse entry' and/or         imposed on those receiving cleansing services provided by
    b) to implement such decision by actually removing              non-registered undertakings, Article 6 of Law No 82/1994
    the person concerned from the territory of the                  has the result that registration of undertakings constitutes
    Member State, and if so in what way?                            an essential precondition to carrying out cleansing,
                                                                    disinfection and similar activities within the territory of
                                                                    the Italian State.
6. Is the answer to question 5 in turn capable of being
    affected by whether the delay in implementing a                 The Commission submits that, in so far as that
    decision to refuse entry' is due to a challenge to its         registration requirement also applies to operators
    legality, and if so in what way?                                established in other Member States and not established in
                                                                    Italy, it prevents and in any event obstructs the freedom to
                                                                    provide services as defined by Article 60 of the Treaty.


title: Case C-557/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Transport services carried out by travel agents acting in their own name — Concept of single service — Article 98 — Reduced VAT rate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie
   (Case C-557/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Transport services carried out by travel agents acting in their own name - Concept of single service - Article 98 - Reduced VAT rate)
   2012/C 399/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Kozak

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 306 to 310, and Article 98 in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Scope of the special scheme for the taxation of travel agents — Refusal to apply the reduced rate of VAT, applicable to transport services, to transport services supplied by travel agents acting in their own name within the framework of the supply of an integrated travel service — Classification as a single supply

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a tourist service provided to a tourist in return for an all-inclusive price imposed in conformity with those provisions, a travel agent provides to that tourist an in-house transport service which forms part of that tourist service, that supply of services is subject to the normal value added tax regime, inter alia in relation to the tax rate, and not to the special value added tax scheme applicable to transactions carried out by travel agents. In accordance with Article 98 of that directive, if the Member States have provided for a reduced rate of value added tax for transport services, that reduced rate applies to that supply of services.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Appeal brought on 27 April 1998 by D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and others against the judgment delivered on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-85/95 between D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-164/98 P)

text:
13.6.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 184/7
Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Anne-Marie Toller                  principle of legal certainty: the Court of First Instance
against the judgment delivered on 19 February 1998 by                 acted inconsistently in criticising the appellant for having
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              failed timeously to contest the opinion of the Invalidity
European Communities in Case T-142/96 between Anne-                   Committee on which the appointing authority based its
Marie Toller and the Commission of the European                       decision of 1 July 1993 whilst at the same time
                          Communities                                 acknowledging that it was not until after those decisions
                      (Case C-149/98 P)                               had been taken that the various ailments giving rise to
                                                                      invalidity which are now alleged were diagnosed. It is also
                         (98/C 184/09)                                inconsistent to regard the opinion of the Invalidity
                                                                      Committee as definitive when it was also found that
                                                                      certain matters alleged by the appellant could not have
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
                                                                      been diagnosed at the time when the Invalidity Committee
1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                      gave its opinion on the appellant's condition, despite the
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-142/96
                                                                      fact that the ailment nevertheless existed. Moreover, it is
between Anne-Marie Toller and the Commission of the
                                                                      also inconsistent and incorrect to decide that, because
European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                      certain matters which made it possible, following the
Justice of the European Communities on 17 April 1998 by
                                                                      appellant's removal from her post, objectively to identify
Anne-Marie Toller, represented by Benoît Lombert and
                                                                      ailments giving rise to invalidity on her part, were brought
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                      to the attention of the Invalidity Committee in good time,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                      that Committee necessarily took those ailments into
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                      account, and to find its medical opinion on those matters
                                                                      definitive.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                     Lastly, the considerations of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      regarding the correct classification to be applied to the
Ð consequently:                                                       appellant's request of 15 September 1995 are defective in
                                                                      fact and in law. It is wrong in law to maintain that that
    (a) set aside the judgment appealed against;                      request can be regarded as a complaint, even though that
                                                                      was the classification which both the appellant and the
    (b) itself adjudicate on the dispute and grant the                respondent purported to apply to the act. Provided that an
          appellant's initial application;                            application is not made in an attempt artificially to start
                                                                      time running again following the expiry of a time-limit for
                                                                      lodging a complaint, it is legitimately and validly open to
Ð annul the decision of 16 November 1995, notified to
                                                                      any official to have recourse to that procedure. That is a
    the appellant on 20 November 1995, expressly
                                                                      fortiori the position in the present case, since the request
    rejecting the request made by the appellant on
                                                                      for reconsideration of the decision of 1 July 1993 was not
    15 September 1995 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the
                                                                      made with a view to having that decision annulled for
    Staff Regulations, whereby she asked the appointing
                                                                      irregularity but was based on matters which could not
    authority to reconsider the decision of 1 July 1993,
                                                                      have served as the basis of a complaint against that
    notified by DG IX, acting as the appointing authority,
                                                                      decision, since the appellant was not aware of them at the
    which imposed on the appellant the disciplinary
                                                                      time.
    measure of removal from post without reduction or
    withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension and
    stated that, with immediate effect, her services were
    no longer required, the said decision taking effect from
    1 October 1993;
Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    submitted pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff                  Appeal brought on 27 April 1998 by D.I.R. International
    Regulations, dated 13 February 1996;                              Film S.r.l. and others against the judgment delivered on
                                                                      19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
Ð consequently, rule that the decision of 1 July 1993                 of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    referred to above is ineffective and order that it be             T-85/95 between D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and
    withdrawn by decision of the appointing authority;                 others and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-164/98 P)
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred
    both in the proceedings at first instance and in the                                      (98/C 184/10)
    present appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
                                                                      1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Breach of Community law, in particular of Article 33 of               of the European Communities in case T-85/95 (1) between
the Statute of the Court of Justice and of the general                D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and others and the
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.6.98
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                     (b) was entitled to substitute its own reasoning for
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       one of the two reasons stated in the contested
on 27 April 1998 by D.I.R. International Film S.r.l.                          decision, the Court of First Instance's reasoning
(D.I.R.'), of Via Leonardo Fibonacci 43, 00166 Rome,                         was in any event irreconcilable with Article 85 of
Italy, Nostradamus Enterprises Limited (Nostradamus                          the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Council
Enterprises'), of The Glassworks, 3Ð4 Ashland Place,                          Regulation 17/62.
London W1M 3JH, United Kingdom, Union P.N. S.r.l.
(Union'), of Via Margutta 33, 00187 Rome, Italy, United           (1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995, p. 32.
International Pictures B.V. (UIP'), of Rijswijkstraat 175,        (2) Council Regulation 17/62 of 6 February 1962, First
1062 EV Amsterdam, Netherlands, United International                   Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ
Pictures AB (UIP AB'), of Hornsbruksgatan 19, 10274                   13, 21.2.1962, p. 204 [SE SER1 (59Ð62) p. 87]).
                                                                   (3) Council Decision 90/685/EEC of 21 December 1990
Stockholm, Sweden, United International Pictures APS
                                                                       concerning the implementation of an action programme to
(UIP APS'), of Hauchsvej 13, 1825 Frederiksberg C,                    promote the development of the European audiovisual
Copenhagen, Denmark, United International Pictures A/S                 industry (Media) (1991 to 1995) (OJ L 380, 31.12.1990,
(UIP A/S'), of Hegdehaugsveien 27, 0352 Oslo 3,                       p. 37).
Norway, United International Pictures EPE (UIP EPE'), of
4 Gambetta Street, Athens Gr. 106 78, Greece, United
International Pictures OY (UIP OY'), of Kaisaniemenkatu
1 C, 00100 Helsinki, Finland and United International
Pictures y Cia SRC (UIP y Cia SRC'), of Plaza del Callao
4Ð6o, Madrid 28013, Spain, represented by Alexandre                          Removal from the register of C-331/97 (1)
Vandencasteele and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the Brussels                                      (98/C 184/11)
Bar, of Liedekerke SimeÂon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                 By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-331/97: Commission
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                        of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
Set aside the contested judgment and accordingly
                                                                   (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
Ð give final judgment on the case, grant the Appellants
     the order sought before the Court of First Instance and
     order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     proceedings both before the Court of First Instance
     and the Court of Justice;
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-393/97 (1)
Ð or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court                                  (98/C 184/12)
     of First Instance for judgment and reserve the costs.
                                                                   By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-393/97 (reference
The Appellants rely on three grounds of appeal based on            for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht
an infringement of Community law by the Court of First             Halle): Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG v.
Instance, in particular of Articles 85, 173 and 190 of the         Landkreis Burgenlandkreis.
EC Treaty, of Council Regulation 17/62 (2), of Council
Decision 90/685/EEC (3), of the EFDO Guidelines and of             (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate
expectations.
The Court of First Instance:
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-302/96 (1)
1) wrongly considered that the Commission enjoyed                                           (98/C 184/13)
     discretionary power to assess the eligibility of EFDO
     funding applications;
                                                                   By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
2) illegally substituted its own reasoning for one of the          removal from the register of Case C-302/96: Commission
     two reasons stated in the contested decision, and;            of the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of
                                                                   Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Federal Republic of
3) even if the Court of First Instance                             Germany.
     (a) rightly considered that the Commission enjoyed            (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
          discretionary power to assess the eligibility of
          EFDO funding applications and


title: Case T-331/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY)
   (Case T-331/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2015 (Case R 954/2014 2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE SNACK COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bimbo, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-311/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 275/48               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
                                                                           report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
                                                                           investigator who remained authorised.
—     annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director removing one of the investigators from the
      Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
                                                                           (1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
      of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures          (2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
      adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;                    of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
                                                                               conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
                                                                               in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.
—     annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
      trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;
—     annul the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
      investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
      adopting that report or its conclusions;
—     annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of                 Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
                                                                           GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
      OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
                                                                                of the European Union
      of 4 February 2003 against that report;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-                                             (Case T-311/03)
      sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
      EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                                (2003/C 275/81)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
      sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to                                     (Language of the case: German)
      his career;
—     order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
      has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the             An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      administrative complaints against the contested decision             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      and report;                                                          of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
                                                                           Nürburgring GmbH, represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
                                                                           Dr M.A. Dauses.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
                                                                                of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                                sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already                       in particular, void;
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats             —     order the defendant to bear the costs.
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of           The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-             ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission                  support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal                   because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and           is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of                Nürburgring.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/49
The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version                 —     Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach                   2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC                   2001;
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.                   —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in                   pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban                  Court of First Instance, together with the expenses
on sponsoring.                                                                  necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
                                                                                and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
                                                                                for service, travel and subsistence expenses and the
                                                                                remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC                those rules.
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the                In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
directive is a disproportionate measure, in view both of                  Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community                 assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.
(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR
    I-8419.
                                                                          Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
                                                                          Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-314/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/83)
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                            munities
                        (Case T-313/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 275/82)                                   European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
                                                                          Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
                                                                          by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies                           overpaid to it;
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-259/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt Wuppertal (Common Customs Tariff - Collections and collectors' pieces of historical or ethnographic interest - Old cars)

text:
C 20/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1), as amended by Council                       Düsseldorf, Germany, in the proceedings pending before
Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, which also                that court between: Uwe Clees and Hauptzollamt
amends Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                 (Principal Customs Office) Wuppertal Ð application for a
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   preliminary ruling on the interpretation of heading 9705
Tariff (OJ L 123, 17.5.1988, p. 2) Ð the Court (First                of the combined nomenclature contained in Annex I to
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on
of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges;                the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy              Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1) Ð
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:                              Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                     K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Article 112(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83
of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of
reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, which also
amends Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                 Heading 9705 of the combined nomenclature contained in
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
Tariff, must be interpreted as follows:                              23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
                                                                     on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as
                                                                     meaning that motor vehicles which are:
the definition of standard tanks' used therein does not
apply to tanks fixed to containers equipped with a
refrigeration system and intended for long-distance road
haulage where those tanks have been permanently fixed                Ð in their original state, without substantial changes to
by one of the manufacturer's dealers or by a coachbuilder                the chassis, steering or braking system, engine, etc.;
in order to attain certain financial objectives.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                                                                     Ð at least 30 years old; and
                                                                     Ð of a model or type which is no longer in production
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     are presumed to be of historical or ethnographic interest.
                     of 3 December 1998
in Case C-259/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt
                         Wuppertal (1)                               However, motor vehicles which satisfy those conditions
                                                                     are not of historical or ethnographic interest where the
(Common Customs Tariff Ð Collections and collectors'
                                                                     competent authority establishes that they are not liable to
  pieces of historical or ethnographic interest Ð Old cars)
                                                                     evidence a significant step in the evolution of human
                        (1999/C 20/22)                               achievements or illustrate a period of that evolution.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     In addition, the criteria laid down by the case-law of the
                                                                     Court concerning the characteristics required in order for
                                                                     a vehicle to be included in a collection must be met.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
In Case C-259/97, reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court)


title: Case T-463/17: Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/11

         Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)
   (Case T-463/17)
   (2017/C 330/14)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Raise Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Raizers (Paris)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘RAISE’ — European Union trade mark No 11 508 967

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1606/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision to the extent that it declared invalid EU trade mark RAISE No 11 508 967 for lack of distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to the following services in Class 36: ‘Financial affairs; financial information; financial management; financing services; financial analysis; mutual funds and capital investments; financial consultancy; financial sponsorship; financing (loan) business; financial evaluation (insurance, banking, real estate); setting up and investment of funds; factoring; issue of tokens of value; stock exchange quotations; securities brokerage; monetary affairs; exchanging money; fiscal valuations and assessments; real estate affairs; insurance; provident fund services; direct banking; issuing of travellers’ cheques or credit cards; real estate appraisal; real estate management’;

               —

               order the company Raizers, applicant in the action for a declaration of invalidity, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the company Raise Conseil, including representation expenses.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-14/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Caló v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/57

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Caló v Commission
   (Case F-14/07)
   (2007/C 82/120)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Caló (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision to dismiss the applicant's candidature for the post of Director of the ‘Business Statistics ’Directorate of the Statistics Office of the European Communities;

               —

               annul the decision to appoint Mr. X to that post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of EUR 1 by way of damages for a breach of administration;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the defendant, challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the decision to re-assign him to the duties of Principal Adviser to the DG to which he was assigned (1) and the decision to reject his candidature for the post of Director in the same DG (2), and before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (3), the decisions, taken in connection with the reorganisation of the DG Eurostat, to reject his candidature for a Director's post. Now he is contesting the decision to reject his candidature for another post as a Director in the same DG and to appoint another candidate to that post.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on, inter alia, the existence of a manifest error of assessment and the infringement of: (i) Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations; (ii) the Commission rules on the appraisal, selection and appointment of officials in higher-management posts as defined in a Communication of 22 December 2000; (iii) the rules on the appraisal of higher-management staff of Grades A1 and A2, as defined in a Communication of 10 March 2004; (iv) the vacancy notice COM/2006/164.

      (1)  Case T-118/04 (OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004, p. 47).

      (2)  Case T-134/04 (OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004, p. 6).

      (3)  Case F-79/06 (OJ C 237 of 30.9.2006, p. 17).


title: Case C-388/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-execution — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/11

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-388/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-execution - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum))
   (2017/C 293/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Sampol Pucurull and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 11 December 2014 in Commission v Spain (C-576/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2430) by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 20 September 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 million.

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.