               24.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/12

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-17/10)
   2011/C 58/06
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented by Dr Andrea Entner-Koch, acting as Agent for the Principality of Liechtenstein, EEA Coordination Unit, Austrasse 79/Europark, 9490 Vaduz, Fürstentum Liechtenstein.
   The Principality of Liechtenstein requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 regarding the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

               2.

               in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;
               and

               3.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the tax exemptions applicable to investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefitted from the exemptions following their repeal in 2006.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority held that recovery should be affected without delay, and in any event by 3 March 2011, in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.

               —

               The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           erred when it applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to the taxation of investment companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, and when it ordered the repayment of the alleged unlawful aid from the investment companies as from 15 March 1997,

                           —

                           violated the general principles of EEA law in ordering the recovery of alleged unlawful aid,

                           —

                           did not provide adequate reasoning in its contested Decision, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.


title: Case T-126/11 P: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Act adversely affecting an official — Implied refusal — Duty to state reasons — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/17

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-126/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Act adversely affecting an official - Implied refusal - Duty to state reasons - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 126/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Curall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (single judge) on 14 December 2010 in Case F-1/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment in part of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               2.

               The cross-appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               3.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

               4.

               Each party shall bear its own costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Fratelli Murri SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/98)

text:
C 312/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
accumulate initial reference quantities throughout the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
whole of the reference period (1989 to 1991), and were             Chambers of Claude Medernach, of Arendt &
able to do so only during the period from 3 October 1990           Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Luxembourg.
to 31 December 1991.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants maintain that the organisation of the
market has had the effect of depriving them of quantities,         Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
since it did not provide for any transitional rules which              USD 7 923 791 together with interest thereon at a rate
would have enabled third-country operators to adapt their              of 10 % from 25 September 1991,
business arrangements gradually to the organisation of the
market and to write off the investments made by them on            Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the basis of the quantities imported prior to the entry into
force of the organisation of the market. The applicants
were able to use only a small part of the initial reference        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period from 1989 to 1991 in order to accumulate
reference quantities. They received far fewer import               The applicant, a property and construction company
licences than they would have received if, like all other          limited by shares and incorporated under Italian law,
third-country operators, they had had the benefit of a             alleges that it undertook work on the basis of a contract
reference period of three years.                                   entered into with the defendant for the Baardaheere
                                                                   Agricultural Experimental Station' development aid
                                                                   project launched on the basis of the Third ACP-EEC LomeÂ
The applicants complain of breach of the rights of the
                                                                   Convention for Somalia and for the execution of a project
defence, in that the Commission refused to hear the views
                                                                   under the aegis of the Sixth European Development Fund
of third-country operators unless those operators
                                                                   in Somalia.
presented their views jointly with the Community
operators and ACP operators, speaking with one voice'.
The applicants further allege a breach of the prohibition          The defendant's liability is now at issue as the
of discrimination contained in Article 40(3) of the EC             administrator of that development fund and employer of a
Treaty and breach of the principle of the protection of            member of staff answerable to it, namely its Somalia
legitimate expectations as regards third-country operators         delegate, on the ground of his unlawful conduct resulting
generally (who were given no opportunity to adapt                  in an obligation to pay damages. In spite of the unrest
themselves gradually to the drastic reduction in                   akin to civil war in 1990 and 1991, that delegate allegedly
quantities). In addition, the application to the applicants        held the applicant to its obligations under its contract
of the common organisation of the market has prejudiced            with the defendant notwithstanding the grave concerns
their freedom to engage in commercial activities. Finally,         voiced by the applicant about remaining in the country
the applicants plead infringement of the decision of the           any longer. Further, the delegate even urged the applicant
Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation            that it should maintain and oversee the works which had
(WTO), according to which essential provisions of the              been constructed for a period of at least two months
common organisation of the market, in particular the               beyond the performance of the contract. The applicant
system of licences established by it, are incompatible with        notified the defendant in writing as long ago as 1991 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the                 resultant claims for compensation particularly since the
General Agreement on Trade in Services. Consequently,              applicant had incurred damage in the total amount of
the Community is liable to compensate the applicants by            USD 7 923 791 as a result of warlike acts committed by
placing them in the position which they would haved                the guerillas (destruction and theft of plant and equipment
occupied if the common organisation of the market, which           and plundering and wreaking devastation at the head
is contrary to the WTO rules, had never entered into               office and workshops) and the associated costs
force.                                                             (evacuation costs, claims for compensation from foreign
                                                                   staff, etc.).
                                                                   The applicant considers the fact that the defendant's
                                                                   delegate repeatedly ordered that the contract be performed
                                                                   and the project maintained and overseen, notwithstanding
                                                                   the foreseeability of the disintegration of Somalia's State
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Fratelli Murri SpA
                                                                   structures, to amount to unlawful conduct attributable to
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   the defendant. It alleges that the delegate, who was aware
                      (Case T-106/98)                              of that situation although he may have failed to make a
                       (98/C 312/37)                               correct assessment of how it would develop, did not give
                                                                   permission for the works to be prematurely terminated
                                                                   and the machines and equipment to be removed from the
               (Language of the case: German)                      country in time. Consequently there was a breach of the
                                                                   principle of proportionality. If the delegate had properly
An action against the Commission of the European                   and fairly weighed up the interests of the parties, he
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  would Ð not least as a result of the applicant's repeated
Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 1998               express warnings as to the dangerousness of the situation
by Fratelli Murri SpA, Rome (Italy), represented by Karl-          Ð have seen that the development aid project was not
Gustav von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt, Plauen (Germany),                secure in the long term and so was doomed. Instead, the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/15
orders issued by the delegate resulted in a contract which          a breach of the confidentiality of medical information,
had, in terms of achieving its goal Ð namely, development           which is an absolute requirement and a matter of public
aid for Somalia Ð plainly become wholly obsolete, being             policy.
forcibly performed. Yet the applicant's assets could have
been preserved by an immediate withdrawal from                      Lastly, the appointing authority has failed to comply with
Somalia.                                                            the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 7 of the
                                                                    rules on disciplinary proceedings: the imposition of a
                                                                    disciplinary measure three and a half years after the
                                                                    disciplinary proceedings were commenced represents a
                                                                    manifest failure to respect any reasonable time limit. In
                                                                    view of that failure, it is no longer possible for any
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by AndreÂ van Meuter                 disciplinary measure to be taken and the disciplinary
  against the Commission of the European Communities                proceedings must be closed.
                       (Case T-109/98)
                        (98/C 312/38)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                    Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Mannesmannröhren-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Werke AG against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998                                          Communities
by AndreÂ van Meuter, residing in Brussels, represented by                                 (Case T-112/98)
Olivier Eben and Jean-Marc Bievez, of the Brussels Bar,                                      (98/C 312/39)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-                               (Language of the case: German)
Alzette.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Ð annul the disciplinary measure taken by the appointing            by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office
    authority on 10 October 1997, by which the applicant            is in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
    was downgraded from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2,            Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Rechtsanwälte, Düssel-
    step 8, and order that he be reinstated in his former           dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    grade,                                                          Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
Ð order that the disciplinary proceedings against the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    applicant be closed,
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
Ð order that no other disciplinary measure be taken                      1998 in its entirety,
    against the applicant,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision,
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority
decided to impose on the applicant, with effect from                In the course of an investigation to ascertain alleged
1 November 1997, the disciplinary measure of                        infringements by steel pipe producers of Article 85 of the
downgrading from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8,           EC Treaty, the Commission addressed the contested
on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply              decision to the defendant, requiring it to provide the
with his obligation to undergo a medical examination, as            information specified in the schedule to the decision
he had undertaken to do, and that he had not lived up to            within 30 days or pay a default fine of ECU 1 000 per day
the trust which the appointing authority had placed in              in the event of non-compliance.
him.
                                                                    The applicant complains that the Commission did not
According to the applicant, he cannot be downgraded.                allow it a sufficient hearing before issuing the decision.
Despite the excellent staff reports drawn up in relation to         There was thus a lack of any proper preliminary
him, and despite his having passed a competition, he has            procedure, contrary to Article 11(5) in conjunction with
never been promoted. Downgrading means that the                     Article 16(2) of Regulation 17. The Commission further
applicant has been penalised twice on the basis of the              failed to make available to the applicant in an appropriate
same facts, the first penalty being his non-promotion.              manner those documents which it used in issuing a
                                                                    decision causing lasting prejudice to the applicant, and
Moreover, to impose a disciplinary measure without                  upon which it based that decision. The principles in the
making the applicant's medical file available to him                Solvay (1) and ICI (2) cases were thereby infringed. The
constitutes a violation of the rights of the defence. The           applicant also complains of a breach of Article 190 of the
fact that details of the applicant's state of health were           EC Treaty in that the formal statement of reasons for the
revealed to the appointing authority represents, a fortiori,        decision does not explain why it was necessary.


title: Case C-383/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-383/11)
   2011/C 298/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Digitalnet OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               How are the terms ‘modem’ and ‘internet access’ to be interpreted for the purposes of subheading 8528 71 13 of the 2009 Combined Nomenclature (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (1), OJ L 291, p. 1) and the Explanatory Notes?

               2.

               What is the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box, pursuant to which the tariff classification must be carried out: receipt of television signals or the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet?

               3.

               If the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box is the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet, is the type of modulation and demodulation which the modem brings about or the type of modem used relevant to the tariff classification, or does it suffice that access to the internet is provided by means of the modem?

               4.

               Is it permissible for the customs authorities to amend the customs duty classification of a specific product without physically checking the imported product, and for the experts’ report to be issued exclusively on the basis of written evidence, namely the user manual, technical characteristics and inspection of a device made by the same manufacturer which has the same number from another imported consignment?

               5.

               Under which code of the 2009 Combined Nomenclature (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, OJ L 291, p. 1) should the goods forming the subject-matter of the proceedings (set-top box) be classified, having regard to the technical characteristics established in the main proceedings?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.


title: Case T-8/13: Action brought on 4 January 2013 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/25

         Action brought on 4 January 2013 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-8/13)
   2013/C 71/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France); and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Union of 26 October 2012 (Ares(2012)1271350);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicants an amount to be fixed by the General Court in reparation of the material and non-material damages they have incurred; and

               —

               Order the commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants wished to make use of the rights provided to them by the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006) (1). Pursuant to that Regulation they submitted a request for Internal Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012 (2) approving the active substance ‘bifenthrin’, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3). In their request the applicants referred to the case law of the General Court, through which an important question with respect to the Regulation was settled (Judgments of the General Court of 14 June 2012, Cases T-338/08 and T-396/09). However, the Commission decided, through its in this case contested decision of 26 October 2012, to declare the request for internal review not-admissible in spite of the fact that the earlier decisions of the Commission leading to the two judgments of 14 June 2012, which earlier decisions were entirely similar to the one taken in the current case, were annulled by the General Court given the Court’s finding that the Aarhus Regulation was partly unlawful, because it violated the terms of the Aarhus Convention (4). The European Union is a party to that Convention as are all the Member States of the EU.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   First, the applicants contend that the Commission wrongfully failed to respect the General Court’s Judgments of 14 June 2012 in cases T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission and, T-396/09, Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission, T-396/09.
   Second, the applicants contend that the restriction of the Aarhus Regulation to ‘administrative acts of individual scope’ establishes a violation of the European Union’s obligation to follow from the Aarhus Convention, in so far as Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 limits the concept of ‘acts’, as used in Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, to ‘administrative act(s)’ defined in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 as ‘measure(s) of individual scope’.

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

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012 approving the active substance bifenthrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 Text with EEA relevance

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC

      (4)  Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Declarations (OJ 2005 L. 124, p. 4).


title: Case C-406/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd (Intellectual property — Directive 91/250/EEC — Legal protection of computer programs — Articles 1(2) and 5(3) — Scope of protection — Creation directly or via another process — Computer program protected by copyright — Reproduction of the functions by a second program without access to the source code of the first program — Decompilation of the object code of the first computer program — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Article 2(a) — User manual for a computer program — Reproduction in another computer program — Infringement of copyright — Condition — Expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
   (Case C-406/10) (1)

   (Intellectual property - Directive 91/250/EEC - Legal protection of computer programs - Articles 1(2) and 5(3) - Scope of protection - Creation directly or via another process - Computer program protected by copyright - Reproduction of the functions by a second program without access to the source code of the first program - Decompilation of the object code of the first computer program - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 2(a) - User manual for a computer program - Reproduction in another computer program - Infringement of copyright - Condition - Expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual)
   2012/C 174/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SAS Institute Inc.

      Defendant: World Programming Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(3) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42) — Extent of protection — Creation, directly or via a process such as decompilation of the object code, to create another computer program which replicates the functions of another computer program, protected by copyright, without access to the source code of the latter program.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

               2.

               Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.

               3.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if — this being a matter for the national court to ascertain — that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual for the computer program protected by copyright.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-30/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use)

text:
               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/13

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 July 2016
   in Case E-30/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use)
   (2017/C 108/11)
   In Case E-30/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-499/10: Action brought on 8 October 2010 — MOL v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/52

         Action brought on 8 October 2010 — MOL v Commission
   (Case T-499/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/102
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister and C. van der Meer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision; or

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of amounts from the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3553 final of 9 June 2010, declaring incompatible with the common market the aid implemented by the Hungarian authorities in favour of the Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc (‘MOL’) as a result of an agreement between MOL and the Hungarian State which allows the company to be actually exempted from the increased level of mining fee following an amendment to the Hungarian Mining Act in January 2008 [State aid C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08)]. The applicant is identified in the contested decision as a beneficiary of the alleged State aid and the decision orders Hungary to recover the aid, including interest, from the applicant.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it argues that the defendant erred in law when it found that the prolongation of the applicant’s mining rights in 2005 viewed together with the subsequent 2008 amendment of the Mining Act constitute unlawful and incompatible State aid and ordered the recovery of this alleged State aid with interest from the applicant. Specifically the applicant contends that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU in determining that:

               —

               the 2005 prolongation agreement and the 2008 amendment of the Mining Act together are one State aid measure pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU;

               —

               the alleged aid measure is selective based on the erroneous conclusion that the appropriate system of reference is the authorization regime rather than the Mining Act;

               —

               the alleged aid measure conferred an advantage on the applicant despite the fact that the applicant paid higher mining fees and charges than would have been due absent the alleged aid measure or pursuant to the 2008 amendment of the Mining Act and, in any event, Hungary acted as a market operator and the prolongation agreement was justified by economic considerations;

               —

               the alleged aid measure distorted competition even though other market participants did not pay higher fees pursuant to the Mining Act as amended.

         Second, and in the alternative, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed Article 108(1) TFEU by failing to assess the prolongation agreement (which was not a State aid measure between its conclusion in 2005 and the 2008 amendment of the Mining Act and became State aid only with the entry into force of the 2008 amendment of the Mining Act) under the rules applicable to existing aid.
   Third and alternatively, in the event that the Court should find that the measure constitutes new aid, the applicant claims that the defendant violated Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation by ordering recovery, because the recovery of amounts from the applicant violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations in the stability of the prolongation agreement and the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-822/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/61

         Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)
   (Case T-822/14)
   (2015/C 046/79)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH (Gerolstein-Müllenborn, Germany) (represented by: M. Straub, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cottonfeel’ — Application No 1 1 9 35  236

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 2579/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02: Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH v Commission of the European Communities (Subsequent accounting for import duties — Conditions — Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2193/92 — Detectable error — Duty of care — Regulation (EC) No 774/94 — Combined nomenclature — WTO tariff quotas)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/43
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH,
                                                                         established in Langen (Germany), represented by K. Landry
                     of 17 September 2003                                and L. Harings, lawyers, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer, R. Tricot, X. Lewis and
in Case T-137/01: Stadtsportverband Neuss eV v Com-                      M. Núñez-Müller): Application for, first, partial annulment of
          mission of the European Communities (1)                        Commission Decision C (2001) 2533 of 14 August 2001
                                                                         (REC 4/00), finding it appropriate to effect post-clearance
(Action for annulment — Eurathlon Programme — Com-                       recovery of import duties not charged to Peter Biegi Nahrungs-
munity financial assistance — Partial repayment — Obli-                  mittel GmbH in respect of the importation of poultry meat
gation to state reasons — Method of calculation — Limi-                  from Thailand during the period from 13 to 18 July 1995 and
            tation period — Ineligible expenditure)                      from 4 to 22 September 1995 (Case T-309/01), and, second,
                                                                         annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 857 of 5 March
                         (2003/C 275/69)                                 2002 (REC 4/01), finding it appropriate to effect post-clearance
                                                                         recovery of import duties not charged to Commonfood
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH in respect of the
                                                                         importation of poultry meat from Thailand on 24 July 1995
                                                                         (Case T-239/02), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
In Case T-137/01, Stadtsportverband Neuss eV, established in             composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Neuss (Germany), represented by H.G. Hüsch and S. Schnelle,              Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                a judgment on 17 September 2003, in which it:
J. Sack): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision of 9 April 2001 ordering partial repayment of                   1.    Dismisses the applications.
financial assistance granted to the applicant under the Eur-
athlon programme, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Cham-
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
ber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in                 (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002 and C 247 of 12.10.2002.
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                         in Case T-321/01: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                     of 17 September 2003
in Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02: Peter Biegi Nah-                  (Development cooperation — Community co-financing of
rungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft                      projects by NGOs — Ineligibility of an NGO — Rejection
für Agrar-Produkte mbH v Commission of the European                                        of co-financing applications)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/71)
(Subsequent accounting for import duties — Conditions
— Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2193/92 —
Detectable error — Duty of care — Regulation (EC) No                                        (Language of the case: French)
 774/94 — Combined nomenclature — WTO tariff quotas)
                         (2003/C 275/70)
                                                                         In Case T-321/01, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J.
                                                                         Jonczy and S. Fries): Application for annulment of the
In Joined Cases T-309/01 and T-239/02, Peter Biegi Nahrungs-             Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001 refusing appli-
mittel GmbH, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),                 cations for the co-financing of two projects submitted by the


title: Case T-459/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014  — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/18

         Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)
   (Case T-459/14)
   2014/C 329/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos (Setúbal, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511‘LEO’;

               —

               order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘LEO’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘LEO D’HONOR’ for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-236/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep by order of 12 June 2002 in the case of J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel

text:
C 202/12               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Beroep by order of 12 June 2002 in the case of J. Slob                 hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
                     v Productschap Zuivel                             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluck-
                                                                                as
                         (Case C-236/02)
                                                                                (Case C-238/02)
                         (2002/C 202/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 12 June 2002 by the
College van Beroep, which was received at the Court Registry           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob       European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
v Productschap Zuivel on the following question:                       (Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 28 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Can it be inferred from Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC)            of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluckas
No 536/93 (1) that the producer is obliged to maintain                 on the following questions:
accounts recording among other things, the availability, pro-
duction, storage, use, processing and destruction of milk and/         1.   Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
or milk products on his holding, such ‘stock accounts’ also                 meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
being required to contain declarations of the quantity per                  of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
month and per product of the milk and/or milk products sold,                the Community customs territory must refer expressly
or does that provision only lay down an obligation to record                to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
those data as to sales?                                                     compartments?
(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12.
                                                                       2.   If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                            Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
                                                                            meaning that such notification must also be made by the
                                                                            driver of a lorry, or a co-driver also entitled to drive it,
                                                                            who was not aware and should not have been aware of
                                                                            the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 2 May 2002 in the case             3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft &
  Co. KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter                    Is the identity of the person who actually gave the
                                                                            (incomplete) notification a material factor in determining
                         (Case C-237/02)                                    the customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3)
                                                                            of the Customs Code?
                         (2002/C 202/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 2 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co.                Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June
KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter on the              2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom
following question:                                                    Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of
                                                                              NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World
Is a term, contained in a seller’s standard business conditions,
which provides that the purchaser of a building which is to be
                                                                                (Case C-239/02)
constructed is to pay the total price for that building,
irrespective of whether there has been any progress in the
construction, provided that the seller has previously provided                                  (2002/C 202/18)
him with a guarantee from a credit institution securing any
monetary claims the purchaser may have in respect of defective
performance or non-performance of the contract, to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of               European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair              Koophandel (Commercial Court), Hasselt, of 28 June 2002,
terms in consumer contracts?                                           received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                       1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the
                                                                       case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World on the
                                                                       following questions:


title: Case F-4/15: Action brought on 12 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/26

         Action brought on 12 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-4/15)
   (2015/C 096/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission decisions to apply to the applicants’ salaries and pensions the adjustments provided under Regulation Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 respectively for the years 2011 and 2012 and the claim for damages for the material loss suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as it is necessary, the decisions rejecting the claims;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, in damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-272/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/35

         Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-272/08)
   (2008/C 209/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 of that directive.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time limit for transposition of the directive expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case T-436/07 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Nikos Giannopoulos against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06, Giannopoulos v Council

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/50

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Nikos Giannopoulos against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06, Giannopoulos v Council
   (Case T-436/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, Lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06;

               —

               uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation submitted by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward pleas in law alleging failures to state reasons and manifest errors of assessment in the response given by the Civil Service Tribunal in relation to the first plea in law, alleging breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, which the appellant put forward in the proceedings at first instance.


title: Case C-306/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 27(1)(d) — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty — Ethyl alcohol — Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD
   (Case C-306/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol - Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines))
   (2015/C 406/09)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

      Defendant: Biovet AD

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt laid down in that provision applies to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-468/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) v Administración del Estado

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 September 2010 — Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF) v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-468/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Crédito (ASNEF)

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules which, in the absence of the interested party’s consent, and to allow processing of his personal data that is necessary to pursue a legitimate interest of the controller or of third parties to whom the data will be disclosed, not only require fundamental rights and freedoms not to be prejudiced, but also require the data to appear in public sources?

               2.

               Are the conditions for conferring on it direct effect, set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, met by the above-mentioned Article 7(f)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case C-85/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Feralpi Holding SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-70/10 Feralpi v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/18

         Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Feralpi Holding SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-70/10 Feralpi v Commission
   (Case C-85/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Feralpi Holding SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Feralpi claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10, and, consequently:

                           (i)

                           annul the contested decision in full or in part; and/or

                           (ii)

                           cancel, or at least reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside, in full or in part, the judgment of 9 December 2014 insofar as it dismissed Feralpi’s action in Case T-70/10 and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits in the light of the guidance provided by the Court of Justice;

               —

               in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Feralpi by the contested decision by reason of the excessive length of time taken for the General Court to process Case T-70/10;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   Feralpi puts forward six grounds of appeal, alleging that:

               —

               the General Court erred in law in finding that no infringement of the principle of collegiality took place when the contested decision was adopted;

               —

               the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in finding that it was permissible for the Commission to adopt the contested decision without sending Feralpi a statement of objections and without providing that company with a guarantee of being able to exercise its rights of the defence;

               —

               the General Court infringed Article 6 ECHR and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) in finding that the period between the delivery of the judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case T-77/03 and the adoption of the contested decision had not been of an excessive duration;

               —

               the General Court misapplied Article 65 ECSC and, in the present case, the concepts of agreements and concerted practices referred to in that provision and the related principles regarding the burden of proof in finding that both a single and continuous agreement on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars and Feralpi’s involvement in that agreement had been established for the periods 1989-1992 and 1993-1995. In that context, the General Court failed to take into account the particular nature of the ECSC legal framework applicable to the concrete reinforcing bars sector. The General Court also manifestly distorted the meaning and scope of the essential evidence adduced. In this respect, the statement of reasons is both inadequate and illogical;

               —

               the General Court infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in deciding not to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to rectify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the precise importance of Feralpi and the other companies involved in the agreement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine;

               —

               the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as Feralpi’s case was not heard within a reasonable time.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Case C-167/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second paragraph of Article 90 EC — Internal taxes imposed on products from other Member States — Taxation liable to protect other products indirectly — Prohibition on discrimination between imported products and competing domestic products — Excise duties — Different tax treatment of beer and wine — Burden of proof)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-167/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second paragraph of Article 90 EC - Internal taxes imposed on products from other Member States - Taxation liable to protect other products indirectly - Prohibition on discrimination between imported products and competing domestic products - Excise duties - Different tax treatment of beer and wine - Burden of proof)
   (2008/C 128/02)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Ström van Lier, K. Gross, K. Simonsson and R. Lyal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Wistrand, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka and E. Broks, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC — Internal taxation of alcohol and alcoholic drinks affecting wine more heavily than beer
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case C-319/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Paris by judgment of that Court of 3 July 2003 in the case of Serge Briheche against Minister for the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms

text:
C 226/10                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          represented by Claudia Schmidt of the Commission's Legal
                                                                            Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
30 June 2002.
                                                                            1.    Rule that the imposition of a ban on the use of a section of
                                                                                the A 12 Inntal motorway between kilometre 20,359 in
                                                                                the Kundl local authority area and kilometre 66,780 in the
                                                                                Ampass local authority area by heavy goods vehicles with a
(1) OJ L 167 of 2.7.1999, p. 33.                                                  total weight exceeding 7,5 tonnes which carry certain
                                                                                goods is incompatible with the Republic of Austria's obli-
                                                                                gations under Articles 1 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 881/92 (1), Articles 1 and 6 of Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 3118/93 (2) and Articles 28 EC to 30 EC;
Reference for a         preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
Administratif de       Paris by judgment of that Court of                         proceedings.
3 July 2003 in          the case of Serge Briheche against
Minister for the        Interior, Internal Security and Local
                             Freedoms                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-319/03)
                                                                            On 27 May 2003, the First Minister of the Land of Tyrol imposed,
                          (2003/C 226/16)                                   on the basis of the Austrian Immissionsschutzgesetz — Luft
                                                                            (Immission Control Act — air), a ban on the use by heavy
                                                                            goods vehicles carrying certain goods of a 46 km stretch of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            A 12 Inntal motorway. This absolute ban applies to the vehicles
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                            covered with immediate effect from 1 August 2003 for an inde-
Administratif de Paris (Administrative Court, Paris) of 3 July
                                                                            finite period.
2003, received at the Court Registry on 24 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Serge Briheche against Minister
for the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms on the               The Commission takes the view that, in imposing this ban, the
following question:                                                         Republic of Austria has acted in breach of the abovementioned
                                                                            obligations of primary and secondary law.
                                                                            The transit ban or the ‘pressure to use railways’ creates addi-
Does Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (1) preclude                   tional delays and costs for the heavy goods vehicles and under-
France from maintaining in force the provisions of Article 8 of             takings concerned. The ban thus constitutes a manifest obstacle
Law No 75-3 of 3 January 1975, as amended by Law                            to the free movement of goods. The approach chosen by the
No 79-569 of 7 July 1979 and Law No 2001-397 of 9 May                       Republic of Austria in applying the ban only to transit traffic,
2001, concerning widows who have not remarried?                             approximately 80 % of which is effected by foreign hauliers,
                                                                            thus entails preferential treatment of the national/local move-
                                                                            ment of goods or, in other words, indirect discrimination of the
                                                                            transport of goods by foreign carriers. That discrimination
                                                                            cannot be justified on the ground of environmental protection.
(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-           For that reason alone, it must be found that the Republic of
    mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women         Austria has infringed Article 28 EC.
    as regards access to employment, vocational training and promo-
    tion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40).
                                                                            The Commission argues alternatively that, even if the measure
                                                                            is not discriminatory, the argument based on protection of the
                                                                            environment cannot be accepted because the Austrian measure
                                                                            does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportion-
                                                                            ality. There are less stringent measures, that is to say, measures
                                                                            which appear equally suitable to achieve the aim sought but
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the                     which present less of an obstacle to the free movement of
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                      goods. Since it cannot be justified on the grounds of environ-
                                                                            mental protection, the measure ultimately infringes Article 28 EC.
                          (Case C-320/03)
                          (2003/C 226/17)                                   It is clear from Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 and Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3118/93 that, in principle, conditions for the free
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                circulation of goods transport other than those laid down in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July                 those regulations are impermissible. There is no exception
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         limiting the scope of that principle. There has thus been a


title: Case T-266/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Withdrawal of fruit and vegetables — Check on all products withdrawn — Arable crops and beef premiums — Period of 24 months)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-266/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Withdrawal of fruit and vegetables - Check on all products withdrawn - Arable crops and beef premiums - Period of 24 months)
   (2008/C 79/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio, S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Spain
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Region and La Rioja in financial year 1998/1999 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the one hand, and expenditure incurred before 22 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Region in financial year 1999/2000 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the other;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (Equal pay for men and women - Right to join an occupational pension scheme - Right to payment of a retirement pension - Part-time workers)

text:
No C 9/2             I EN 1                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 1 . 97
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH (represented by Gerhard
17 October 1996, the operative part of which is as                       Wiedemann ) and Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG ( represented
follows :                                                                by Hans-Jürgen Rabe ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ben Smulders and Jürgen
1 . A Member State may not make grant of the tax                         Grunwald ) — application for annulment of Commission
     advantage provided for in Article 5 (1 ) of Council                 Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
     Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common                  awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by
     system of taxation applicable in the case of parent                 Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG,
     companies and subsidiaries of different Member States               facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from
     subject to the condition that, at the moment when                   Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court
     profits are distributed, the parent company must have               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     held a minimum of 25 % of the capital of the                        of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.
     subsidiary for a period at least equal to that set by               Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.
     that Member State pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the                  Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     Directive. It is for the Member States to draw up rules             a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
     for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in
     accordance with the procedures laid down in their
     domestic law. Those States are not obliged under the                1 . Annuls Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April
     Directive to grant the advantage immediately, on the                      1993 concerning aid awarded by the German
     basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent                           Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH
     company to observe the minimum holding period.                           to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp
                                                                              Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH to
2 . Where a Member State has exercised the option                              Bremer Vulkan AG;
     provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Directive, parent
     companies may rely directly on the rights conferred by
     Article 5 (1 ) and (3) of the Directive before national
                                                                         2 . Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     courts, if those companies observe the holding period
                                                                               to pay the costs.
     set by that Member State.
3 . Community law does not require a Member State                        (M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 and OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 .
     which, when transposing the Directive, stipulated that                   1995 , p. 9 .
     the minimum holding period set pursuant to                          (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
     Article 3 (2) must be completed at the time when the
     profits that are the subject of the tax advantage
     afforded by Article 5 are distributed to compensate
     the parent company for damage which it may have
     incurred by reason of the error thus made.
0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10. 12 . 1994 , pp . 8 and 10 .                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(2 ) OJ No L 225 , 20 . 8 . 1990, p . 6 .
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                                                                         in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (' )
                           ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          (Equal pay for men and women — Right to join an
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                         occupational pension scheme — Right to payment of a
in Joined Cases C-329/93 , C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                             retirement pension — Part-time workers)
Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the
                   European Communities 0 )                                                            ( 97/C 9/04 )
(State aid — Guarantee given by the public authorities in
favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
acquisition of an undertaking in another sector —
Diversification of the activities of the recipient
                    undertaking — Recovery)
                               ( 97/C 9/03 )
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-435/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Rotterdam
                                                                         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court) (Netherlands ), for a
In Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder ), Hanseatische                 court between Francina Johanna Maria Dietz and
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 1 . 97  .     I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/3
Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam — on the interpretation of                   from membership of the occupational scheme in
Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Protocol 2 to Article 119                 breach of Article 119 of the Treaty, those rights being
of the Treaty establishing the European Union — the                        governed by the judgment in Bilka.
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and             (!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 , p . 12 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
ruled :
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 . The right to join an occupational pension scheme falls                                    (Fourth Chamber)
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and
     is therefore covered by the prohibition of                                              of 24 October 1996
     discrimination laid down therein. That interpretation
                                                                     in Case C-86/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     does not depend on the purposes of the national                 the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): H. J. A. M.
     legislation enabling membership to be made                      van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en wildwerkende
     compulsory or on the fact that the employer lodged an           industrie . De Venhorst BV) v. Staatssecretaris , van
     objection to the decision to make such membership                           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( 1 )
     compulsory or on his having conducted an enquiry
     among his employees with a view to seeking                      (Health inspections and controls — Circumstances in
     exemption from compulsory membership.                           which an undertaking is obliged to pay the fee for cutting
                                                                                operations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/05
2. The limitation of the effects in time of the Barber
     judgment (Case C-262/88) does not apply to the right                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
     to join an occupational pension scheme, such as that
     at issue in the main proceedings, or to the right to
     payment of a retirement pension where the worker                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     was excluded from membership of the scheme in                             published in the European Court Reports)
     breach of Article 119 of the Treaty.
                                                                     In Case C-86/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the College van Beroep
3 . The administrators of an occupational pension scheme             voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for Trade
     must, like the employer, comply with Article 119 of             and Industry, the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in
     the Treaty and workers who are discriminated against            the proceedings pending , before that court between
     may assert their rights directly against those                  H. J. A. M. van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en
     administrators.                                                 wildwerkende industrie De Venhorst BV) and
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
                                                                     — on the interpretation of Council Decision 88/408/EEC
                                                                     of 15 June 1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for
4 . The fact that a worker can claim retroactive                     health inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     membership of an occupational pension scheme does               Directive 85/73/EEC ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
     not enable him to avoid paying contributions for the            composed of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the
     period of membership concerned.                                 Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
                                                                     F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
                                                                     ruled :
5 . The national rules relating to time-limits for bringing
     actions under national law may be relied on against             Article 3 (1 ) of Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June
     workers who assert their right to join an occupational          1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for health
     pension scheme or to payment of a retirement pension,           inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     provided that they are not less favourable for such             Directive 85/73/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that
     actions than for similar domestic actions and that they         the part of the fees referred to therein is payable only in
     do not render the exercise of rights conferred by               respect of meat which is actually boned or cut during the
     Community law excessively difficult or impossible in            production stage between the slaughter of the animal and
     practice.                                                       the storage of the meat.
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 14 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 22 . 7. 1988 , p . 24 .
6 . Protocol 2 does not affect the right to join an
     occupational pension scheme or the right to draw a
     retirement pension where the worker was excluded