title: Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/97)

text:
No C 94/22         I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 3 . 97
notification of the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement              — order the defendant to pay him compensation equal to
on 5 July 1994 in relation to the joint exercise of rate                the remuneration which he would have received if he
making authority in respect of the inland portions within                had been reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 (4 )
the European Community of through-intermodal transport                    ( d) of the Staff Regulations, in the first post falling
services ('European Intermodal Authority').                              vacant, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                          8 % per annum from the date when such remuneration
                                                                         became due until the date when it is paid,
The applicants claim that the contested decision does not
purport to withdraw immunity from fines in respect of
European Intermodal Authority in any other context.                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
They submit that the contested decision is unlawful on the
following grounds, maintaining that each one of these
grounds is sufficient to justify its annulment:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the legal conditions established by the Court of Justice           Following a period of leave on personal grounds which
    for the withdrawal of immunity from fines are not met            commenced on 16 February 1991 , the applicant, a grade
    in this case,                                                    LA 7 official employed in Luxembourg, asked to be
                                                                     reinstated by fax of 15 December 1993 . He was reinstated
                                                                     in Unit G2 of the Translation Service in Luxembourg on
— the contested decision is incompatible with the order              16 February 1995 .
    of the President of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities in Case T-3 95/94 R [ 1995]
    ECR II, p. 595, upheld by the order of the President of          The applicant pleads infringement by the Commission of
    the Court of Justice in Case C-149/95 P(R),                      Article 40 (4 ) (d ) of the Staff Regulations, since it failed to
                                                                     verify the applicant's ability to satisfy the requirements of
                                                                     the two posts declared vacant in the German language
— the Commission infringed the applicants' rights of                 unit of the Translation Service in Brussels at the time
    defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of              when he asked to be reinstated, as well as three other
    the contested decision .                                         posts declared vacant in Units A2, D2 and E2 on
                                                                     20 January, 20 June and 22 November 1994.
                                                                     He further claims compensation in accordance with
                                                                     Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty, since he received
                                                                     no remuneration in respect of the period from
Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter                  15 December 1993 (the date of his request for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 reinstatement). It follows that the Commission is bound to
                        Case T-19/97)                                compensate him by paying him the remuneration which he
                                                                     would have received from the date of his request for
                         97/C 94/46 )                                reinstatement or, at the latest, from the date when the two
                                                                     posts were declared vacant, until the date of his
               (Language of the case: French)                        reinstatement, 16 February 1995 .
An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 January
1997 by Claude Richter, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                against the Commission of the European Communities
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( Case T-20/97)
SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/47 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting his request
    for compensation for the fault committed by it in not            An action against the Commission of the European
    reinstating the applicant in the first vacant post               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    corresponding to his grade and abilities,                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 January
                                                                     1997 by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ),
                                                                     Sofivo Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
— order the defendant to reconstitute the applicant's                established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,
    career with effect from 15 December 1993 or, at the              established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
    latest, from the date of publication of the first notice         established at Perigueux (France ), Serval, established at
    of vacancy of a post corresponding to his grade and              Sainte Eanne (France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
    abilities,                                                       Bourgbarre ( France), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97        I EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 94/23
( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel             institution, or at least Article 1 ( 9 ) and ( 14 ) thereof,
( France), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne               that part of the act being separable from its other
(France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot             provisions,
(France), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau          — order the Council to pay the costs.
(France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Chateaubourg (France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
Jacut du Mene (France ), and Vals, established in                 The act contested in the present case is Commission
Champagne ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of          Regulation ( EC ) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996
the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down
at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe.                   detailed rules for the application of premium schemes in
                                                                  the beef and veal sector, which implements Council
The applicants claim that the Court should:                       Regulation ( EC) No 2222/96 . The latter Regulation is the
                                                                  subject of proceedings for annulment in Cases T-14 and T
— annul Regulation (EC ) No 2311/96 adopted on                    15/97. The pleas in law and main arguments are the same
     2 December 1996 by the Commission, a Community               as those relied on in those two cases .


title: Case F-17/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 14 May 2014  — Cocco v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 14 May 2014 — Cocco v Commission
   (Case F-17/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010))
   2014/C 194/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Patricia Cocco (Hunting, France) (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission decision rejecting the request to recruit the applicant submitted by OIL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2012, refusing to employ Ms Cocco as a member of the contract staff in function group III;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Cocco.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27/04/2013, p. 30.


title: Case T-319/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/32

         Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-319/12)
   2012/C 287/60
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:

               1.

               Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis.

               2.

               Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex.

               3.

               Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid.

               4.

               In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle.

               5.

               In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes.


title: Case C-204/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-204/09)
   2009/C 193/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flachglas Torgau GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that only bodies and institutions for whom it is, under the law of the Member State, to take the final (binding) decision in the legislative process act in a legislative capacity, or do bodies and institutions which have been given certain functions and rights of involvement in the legislative process by the law of the Member State, in particular to table a draft law and to give opinions on draft laws, also act in a legislative capacity?

                           (b)

                           May the Member States always provide that the definition of ‘public authority’ does not cover bodies and institutions, in so far as they act in a judicial or legislative capacity, only if at the same time the constitutional provisions of those Member States did not provide, at the date of the adoption of the directive, for a review procedure within the meaning of Article 6 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?

                           (c)

                           Are bodies and institutions, in so far as they act in a legislative capacity, excluded from the definition of ‘public authority’ only for the period until the conclusion of the legislative process?

               2

                           (a)

                           Is the confidentiality of proceedings within the meaning of indent (a) of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC provided for by law where the national-law provision enacted to implement Directive 2003/4/EC lays down generally that a request for access to environmental information is to be refused if the disclosure of the information would adversely affect the confidentiality of the proceedings of authorities which are required to provide information, or is it necessary, for that purpose, for a separate statutory provision to provide for the confidentiality of the proceedings?

                           (b)

                           Is the confidentiality of proceedings within the meaning of indent (a) of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC provided for by law where under national law there is a general unwritten legal principle that the administrative proceedings of public authorities are not public?

      (1)  OJ L 41, p. 26


title: Case T-460/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition by object — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the Commission’s investigation)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission
   (Case T-460/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition by object - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the Commission’s investigation))
   (2016/C 383/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Vadodara, India) and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 April 1997 in Case C-66/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: Eunice Sutton (Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Responsibility of a Member State for an infringement of Community law - Right to receive interest on arrears of social security benefits)

text:
No C 199/4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
     Customs Tariff (and under subheading 3505 10 50 of                1 . The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80
     the combined nomenclature) is primarily dependent on                  of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
     its acetyl content and thus on its degree of                          Association, adopted by the Association Council
     esterification. Nevertheless, it is for the national court            established by the Association Agreement between the
     to determine whether the nature of the esterification                 European Economic Community and Turkey, does not
     does not amount to an alteration of the potato starch                 in principle preclude the competent authorities of a
     such that it no longer corresponds qualitatively to                   Member State from requiring that the family members
     native potato starch.                                                 of a Turkish worker, referred to by that provision, live
                                                                           with him for the period of three years prescribed by
                                                                           the first indent of that Article in order to be entitled to
2 . A maximum acetyl content of between 0,61% and                          reside in that Member State. There may however be
     0,74% by weight of esterified potato starch does not                  objective reasons to justify the family member
     preclude its being classified under heading 11.08 A IV                concerned living apart from the Turkish migrant
     of the Common Customs Tariff and under subheading                     worker.
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                     2 . The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of
                                                                           Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           the family member concerned is in principle required
                                                                           to reside uninterruptedly for three years in the host
                                                                           Member State. However, account must be taken, for
                                                                           the purpose of calculating the three-year period of
                                                                           legal residence within the meaning of that provision,
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of an involuntary stay of less than six months by the
                                                                           person concerned in his country of origin. The same
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                  applies to the period during which the person
                        of 17 April 1997                                    concerned was not in possession of a valid residence
                                                                           permit, where the competent authorities of the host
in Case C-351/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Member State did not claim on that ground that the
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen): Selma                        person concerned was not legally resident within
                 Kadiman v. Freistaat Bayern (')                            national territory, but on the contrary issued a new
                                                                            residence permit to him.
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
Association Council — Free movement of workers —
Member of a worker's family — Extension of residence                   (') OJ No C 16,20 . 1 . 1996 .
permit — Conditions — Family unity — Legal residence
for three years — Calculation in the event of
                            interruptions)
                            ( 97/C 199/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 22 April 1997
                                                                       in Case C-66/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Queen v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte:
                                                                                Eunice Sutton ( 1 )
 In Case C-351 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and
 of the EC Treaty by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht                 women in matters of social security — Responsibility of a
 Miinchen ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the                   Member State for an infringement of Community law —
 proceedings pending before that court between Selma                    Right to receive interest on arrears of social security
 Kadiman and Freistaat Bayern — on the interpretation of                                             benefits)
 the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 of the
 Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the                                                 ( 97/C 199/07 )
 development of the Association, adopted by the
 Association Council established by the Association
 Agreement between the European Economic Community                                     (Language of the case: English)
 and Turkey — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:
 G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray,
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen                        In Case C-66/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D.              of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice of
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator for the                      England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997, in                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 which it has ruled :                                                   court between The Queen v. Secretary of State for Social
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/5
Security, ex parte: Eunice Sutton — on the interpretation             proceedings pending before that court between Nils
of Community law in regard to the right to obtain interest            Draehmpaehl and Urania Immobilienservice oHG — on
on arrears of a social security benefit falling within the            the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
scope of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                    9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle              equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
of equal treatment for men and women in matters of                    employment, vocational training and promotion, and
social security ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 ) — the            working conditions ( OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) —
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,              the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
G. E Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                 President, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de
and L. Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,            Almeida and L. Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G.                    Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, H.
Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,                   Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P.
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,               Leger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 April 1997,             Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
in which it has ruled :                                               22 April 1997, in which it has ruled:
Article 6 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                1 . When a Member State chooses to penalize, under rules
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle                   governing civil liability, breach of the prohibition of
of equal treatment for men and women in matter of social                  discrimination, Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
security does not require that an individual should be able               9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
to obtain interest on arrears of a social security benefit                principle of equal treatment for men and women as
such as invalid care allowance, when the delay in payment                 regards access to employment, vocational training and
of the benefit is the result of discrimination prohibited by              promotion, and working conditions, and, in particular,
Directive 79/7. However, a Member State is required to                    Articles 2 (1 ) and 3 (1 ) thereof, preclude provisions of
make reparation for the loss and damage caused to an                      domestic law which make reparation of damage
individual as a result of the breach of Community law.                    suffered as a result of discrimination on grounds of
Where the conditions for State liability are fulfilled, it is             sex in the making of an appointment subject to the
for the national court to apply that principle.                           requirement of fault.
O OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                      2 . Directive 76/207/EEC does not preclude provisions of
                                                                          domestic law which prescribe an upper limit of three
                                                                          months ' salary for the amount of compensation which
                                                                          may be claimed by an applicant where the employer
                                                                          can prove that, because the applicant engaged had
                                                                          superior qualifications, the unsuccessful applicant
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     would not have obtained the vacant position even if
                                                                          there had been no discrimination in the selection
                        of 22 April 1997                                  process. In contrast, the Directive precludes provisions
                                                                          of domestic law which, unlike other provisions of
in Case C-l 80/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                domestic civil and labour law, prescribe an upper limit
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg ): Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania                  of three months ' salary for the amount of
                   Immobilienservice oHG (')                              compensation which may be claimed by an applicant
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                      discriminated against on grounds of sex in the making
Directive 76/207/EEC — Right to reparation in the event                   of an appointment where that applicant would have
of discrimination as regards access to employment —                       obtained the vacant position if the selection process
                                                                          had been carried out without discrimination .
Choice of sanctions by the Member States — Setting of a
         ceiling for aggregate of compensation awards)
                          ( 97IC 199/08 )
                                                                      3 . Directive 76/207/EEC precludes provisions of
                                                                          domestic law which, unlike other provisions of
                                                                          domestic civil and labour law, impose a ceiling of six
                 (Language of the case: German)                           months ' earnings of the aggregate amount of
                                                                          compensation which, where several applicants claim
                                                                          compensation, may be claimed by applicants who have
                                                                          been discriminated against on grounds of their sex in
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            the making of an appointment.
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
In Case C-l 80/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court)
Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the


title: Case T-586/11: Action brought on 17 November 2011 — Oppenheim v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/60

      Action brought on 17 November 2011 — Oppenheim v Commission
      (Case T-586/11)
      (2012/C 25/116)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie. AG & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Brückner and M. Haisch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision K(2011)275, of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 relating to the fiscal carry-forward of losses (‘Sanierungsklausel’), corrected by Decision K(2011) 2608 of 15 April 2011;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: no prima facie selectivity/incorrect definition of the reference framework
                  The applicant claims that there is no prima facie selectivity within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It argues that the Commission’s determination of the reference system is incorrect and that the relevant system of reference, that is the continuation of unused losses by the company, despite an acquisition of shares, is a fundamental rule of national tax law. In addition, it is claimed that the fiscal carry-forward of losses constitutes an exception to that exception which leads back to the system of reference and therefore itself complies with the system.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: carry-forward of losses as a general measure
                  Under this point, the applicant claims that the carry-forward of losses constitutes a general measure and not, therefore, State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is submitted that carrying forward losses is available to all companies which are liable to tax in Germany and that they are neither openly nor covertly linked to features based on territory, size or production sector.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: justification on the basis of the nature and the internal logic of the taxation system
                  The applicant claims in the course of the third plea in law that the carrying-forward of losses is justified by the nature and the internal logic of the German taxation system, as it is a system — consistent exception to the exception of a forfeiture of losses pursuant to Paragraph 8c(1) of the German Law on corporation tax (Körperschaftsteuergesetz; ‘KStG’) which leads back to the reference system complies with it.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: no burden on public finances
                  The applicant claims that the carrying-forward of losses (‘Sanierungsklausel) could not lead to a burden on public finances relevant to aid and for that reason alone it is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicant argues that in a case of corporate restructuring other than the insolvency of the affected company, the only alternative to avoid insolvency is by means of restructuring, and that by the carrying-forward of losses which may enable the company to be saved, the possibility of future tax revenue from the affected company is maintained.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law: infringement of the principle of EU law of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the fifth plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission, through its practice and failure to object to the previous rules of Paragraph 8c KStg as well as comparable rules of other Member States, gave rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant, which should also have been protected on the basis of the binding information and lack of predictability of relevance to State aid of the carrying-forward of losses.


title: Case T-308/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential rate — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-308/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Preferential rate - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - New aid))
   2014/C 421/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: V. Leone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, agents)

      Re:

   By way of principal claim, application for annulment, in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2 and 3 of that decision, the latter in so far as an order is made for restitution of the aid granted to the applicant and, in the further alternative, application for annulment of Article 3 of that same decision, again in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-213/09: Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Yorma's AG v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMAS’S)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/57

         Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Yorma's AG v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMAS’S)
   (Case T-213/09)
   2009/C 180/105
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2009 in Case R 1879/2007-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of a word element ‘YORMA’S’ in blue and yellow for services in Classes 35 and 42 (Registration No 2 048 205)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Norma’ (Community trade mark No 213 769) for goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and the commercial symbol ‘NORMA’ used in the course of trade in Germany, as well as the figurative sign ‘NORMA’

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the Community trade mark application.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1))

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-502/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Management of waste — Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Articles 4, 8 and 9)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-502/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Management of waste - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4, 8 and 9)
   (2005/C 296/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-502/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 November 2003 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004


title: Case F-21/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/33

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission
   (Case F-21/08)
   (2008/C 116/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eric Gippini Fournier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Ruggeri Laderchi)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Secondly, an order that the defendant compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision and pay him the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material damage.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-501/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/46

         Action brought on 8 December 2009 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)
   (Case T-501/09)
   2010/C 37/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PhysioNova GmbH (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: J. Klinik, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2009 in Case R 1/2009-1;

               —

               amend the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 1/2009-1 so as to overrule the decision of the Cancellation Division of 27. October 2008 in Case 2237 C;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the Community figurative mark ‘FLEX’ No 2 275 220 for goods and services in classes 6, 10, 17 and 20

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: PhysioNova GmbH

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the German trade mark No 39 903 314‘PhysioFlex’ and the German trade mark No 39 644 431‘Rotoflex’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-85/12: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford Sweden (Pierre Robert)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford Sweden (Pierre Robert)
   (Case T-85/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/46
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-296/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, Section d'Administration by judgment of that Court of 27 June 2003 in the case of Société Anonyme GlaxoSmithKline against Belgian State

text:
C 213/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as
The appellants plead that the Court erred in finding that the         Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
damage which they alleged arose from the fact of not
managing to import ACP bananas. In truth, the appellants
were complaining that in 1999 and 2000 they had not                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
obtained certificates to import bananas from non-member
countries despite their right to do so under their reference          1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
quantity based exclusively on imports of bananas from non-                  regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
member countries. The appellants submit that the Court failed               to comply with Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) relating
to take account of their arguments in support of their                      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
application for damages.                                                    by failing to have informed the Commission of any
                                                                            such laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that Directive;
                                                                      2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of
27 June 2003 in the case of Société Anonyme Glaxo-
                SmithKline against Belgian State
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-296/03)
                                                                      The period within which the directive was to be incorporated
                         (2003/C 213/34)
                                                                      into national law expired on 9 April 2002.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
Anonyme GlaxoSmithKline against Belgian State on the fol-
lowing question:
Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
further 90 days, referred to in the first subparagraph of             Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) be                                        (Case C-302/03)
considered to be a strict time-limit precluding, upon expiry,
the adoption of any decision, even where an initial decision
                                                                                (2003/C 213/36)
adopted timeously has been annulled?
( 1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July
                                                                      2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by M. Van Beek and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
Action brought on 10 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-298/03)
                                                                      —     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (2003/C 213/35)                                    Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999
                                                                            relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any
                                                                            event, by failing to communicate the same to the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   Commission the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 obligations under Article 9 of that directive;


title: Case T-602/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Bena Properties v Council

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-602/14)
   2014/C 372/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Corent d’Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


8.4.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/31
— Nullity of the decision setting up the OLAF and of                           Removal from the register of Case T-219/94 (1)
     Regulation No 1073/1999:
     The applicants raise the objection, pursuant to Article 241                                (2000/C 102/62)
     EC, that the legal acts on which the contested decision is
     based are null and void. Both the Commission Decision of
     28 April 1999 establishing the OLAF (1) and Regulation                               (Language of the case: German)
     (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
     the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations               By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
     conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2)             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
     are invalid.                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case T-219/94, Hans-Henrich Fürstenwerth v
The Commission based the decision establishing the OLAF on              Commission of the European Communities.
Article 162 of the EC Treaty (now Article 218 EC), hence on a
provision designed to regulate the internal organisational
power, namely the Rules of Procedure. However, it is not                (1) OJ C 218 of 6.8.1994.
possible on that basis to set up a body which is in reality legally
separate from the organisational power of the Commission.
Moreover, in adopting its decision establishing the OLAF, the
Commission unlawfully relinquished part of the supervisory
powers conferred on it by Article 211 EC. In addition, it
delegated to the OLAF powers which it does not possess.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-206/95 (1)
Finally, the regulation based on the decision is likewise founded
on an insufficient legal basis, since Article 280 EC merely                                     (2000/C 102/63)
concerns the combatting of fraud within the Member States. It
does not therefore cover the Community institutions. In
addition, the OLAF’s investigatory powers go beyond any                                   (Language of the case: German)
powers that could conceivably be needed in order to investigate
criminal offences committed within the Parliament.
                                                                        By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 20.                                               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(2) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1.                                                Case T-206/95: Josef Gierse v Council of the European Union
                                                                        and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
Partial Removal from the register in Joined Cases
                     T-530/93 and Others (1)
                         (2000/C 102/61)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-15/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/64)
By order of 24 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of M.A.M. Nijenhuis and J.I.M. and W. Spikker                                 (Language of the case: French)
from the list of applicants in Case T-533/93 — Joined Cases
T-530/93 and Others, R. Bathoorn and Others v Council                   By order of 19 January 2000, the President of the First
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-15/98, Centre d’Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman a.s.b.l.
                                                                        v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.1993, C 27 of 28.1.1994, C 43 of 12.2.1994,
    C 59 of 26.2.1994, C 90 of 26.3.1994, C 103 of 11.4.1994,
    C 120 of 30.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 233 of 20.8.1994          (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
    and C 370 of 24.12.1994.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-44/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/30)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 6 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-44/05: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-44/99: Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 100/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
SupeÂrieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-DucheÂ de                   Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
Luxembourg (Supreme Council of Social Insurance of the                  of the European Communities against the French Republic
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), received at the Court
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                                      (Case C-44/99)
the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu against
                                                                                (1999/C 100/21)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales (National
Family Benefits Fund) on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
1. Are Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a and Annexes II and IIa to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), which lay down the                16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
     principle of the non-transferability of childbirth and             Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
     maternity allowances, consistent with Article 48 and               Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     51 of the EC Treaty?                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. Is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as
     meaning that, in respect of dependant children, it                 The Commission of the European Communities claims
     grants workers in receipt of an invalidity pension who             that the Court should:
     reside in a different country from that which pays the
     invalidity pension, family allowances only, to the
     exclusion of the child-raising allowance which is not              1. declare that, by incorrectly applying the provisions of
     granted by reference to the number of children?                        Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to employed persons other
                                                                            than frontier workers who, during their last
3. Is Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be                       employment, were residing in a Member State other
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an                        than the competent Member State, and, in particular,
     invalidity pension who continues to make compulsory                    by calculating unemployment benefits on the basis of
     sickness insurance contributions in the country which                  the normal wage or salary corresponding, in the place
     provides the pension, may, notwithstanding his                         where the unemployed person is residing or staying, to
     pension, be considered in that country as an employee                  an equivalent or similar employment to his last
     who is entitled to receive family benefits, including the              employment in the territory of another Member State,
     child-raising allowance, and Ð in the event that the                   and not on the basis of the wage or salary actually
     non-transferability clause is held to be incompatible                  received by the person concerned in his last
     with the Treaty Ð childbirth allowances?                               employment in the Member State where he was
                                                                            working immediately prior to becoming unemployed,
                                                                            the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
4. Does the concept of worker' within the meaning of
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 and under Article 48 and
     Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2) include the recipient
                                                                            Article 51 of the EC Treaty;
     of an invalidity penison who resides in a different
     country from that which provides the pension?
                                                                        2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
5. Is Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 to be
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an
     invalidity pension or his spouse may, on the basis of
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     that article, enjoy social advantages which are
     denied him by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
     notwithstanding the principle of non-transferability
     laid down therein in the event that that principle is              The French institutions have conferred entitlement to
     found by the Court to be compatible with the EC                    unemployment benefit on persons other than frontier
     Treaty?                                                            workers who are regarded as employed and who, during
                                                                        their last employment, were risiding in a Member State
                                                                        (France) other than the competent Member State
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on              (Germany), but who cannot, nevertheless, be regarded as
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons      frontier workers.
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149,
    5.7.1971, p. 2).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
    on freedom of movement for workers within the Community             For the purposes of calculating that benefit, the competent
    (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2).
                                                                        authority has taken as the reference wage or salary a wage
                                                                        or salary corresponding to that which the person
                                                                        concerned would have received if he had worked in
                                                                        France in an employment equivalent to his employment in
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/13
Germany, and not that received by him in his last                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
employment in Germany.                                                  to in the Commission's application.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
That method of calculation clearly penalises the worker
concerned on account of the fact that he is resident in a
Member State other than that in which he has worked,
and is incompatible with the main objective of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, which is to facilitate freedom of
movement for workers.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    the application of security schemes to employed persons and         Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
    to members of their families moving within the Community            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
                                                                                (Case C-46/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/23)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the Euroepan Communities on
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission                    16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-45/99)                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 100/22)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                            Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            measures necessary in order fully to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                            concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                            working time (1), the French Republic has failed to
that the Court should:
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and under that
                                                                            directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
     adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     measures necessary in order fully to comply with
     Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
     protection of young persons at work (1), the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                        Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                        down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                        the French Republic having brought into force the
                                                                        necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                        referred to in the Commission's application.
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid              (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
French Republic having brought into force the necessary


title: Case C-454/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Community Customs Code — Second indent of Article 202(3) — Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods — Meaning of ‘debtor’ — Participation in unlawful introduction — Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/18

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen
      (Case C-454/10) (1)

      (Community Customs Code - Second indent of Article 202(3) - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Participation in unlawful introduction - Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)
      (2012/C 25/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Oliver Jestel

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union — Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully without directly taking part in that introduction — Conditions under which such a person can be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated in the introduction as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union where that person was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-306/01: Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/27
On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government
not to implement the decision relating to the Solución Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt               —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of
for the ‘Northern Alternative’, and to warn it that, if it failed to             12 November 2001 (1);
comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned
(Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the
Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its                      —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
views known and, after examining the reply — to which the                        2001 (2), or in the alternative declare that Council Regu-
applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it                   lation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 is not
— the Commission decided to take no action on the case.                          applicable;
The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the
Commission, the Spanish Government’s measures amount to                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings
an infringement of Community law, namely of:                                     in an amount to be specified later.
—      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
       conservation of wild birds (2);
—      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
       conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
       flora (3); and
—      legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular
       Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994
       establishing a Cohesion Fund (4).                                   Three of the applicants are Swedish citizens of Somali origin
                                                                           and the fourth is a non-profitmaking association registered
                                                                           under Swedish law, which inter alia provides support for
The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant            refugees and has assisted with financial transactions between
infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as                residents of Sweden and residents of Somalia.
pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have
taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not
to take action must accordingly be annulled.
                                                                           On 15 October 1999 the United Nations Security Council
( 1) OJ 1998 C 153, p. 172.                                                adopted UNSCR Resolution 1267 (1999), calling for inter alia
( 2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.                                                  sanctions against the Taliban, which were extended by UNSCR
( 3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.                                                  Resolution 1333 (2000) to cover Osama Bin Laden and
( 4) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.                                                  persons and bodies associated with him. On 6 March 2001
                                                                           the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. Under
                                                                           Article 2 of that regulation all funds and other financial
                                                                           resources belonging to any natural or legal person, entity or
                                                                           body listed in Annex I are to be frozen. On the basis of
                                                                           Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 the Commission
                                                                           adopted Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001. As a result of the
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden                       amendment of its list by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
and Others against the Council of the European Union                       the Security Council, the Commission decided to add a number
     and the Commission of the European Communities                        of other persons and bodies to Annex I to Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001, including the applicants.
                          (Case T-306/01)
                           (2002/C 44/47)                                  The applicants submit that Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001 — which provides that the applicants’ funds are
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                       to be frozen and that resources are not to be made available to
                                                                           them — exceeds the powers which the Council has under
                                                                           Article 60 and 301 EC and is in breach of Article 249 EC. The
                                                                           Council does not have the power to adopt sanctions against
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                individuals and organisations and has misused its powers.
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Moreover, in practice, the Council and Commission have
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 delegated decisions as to which persons or organisations
10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others represented                  should be included in Annex I to the Taliban Sanctions
by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson.                                       Committee.
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
The applicants submit further that the Council and Com-                     —     annul the measure of 22 May 2001 adversely affecting the
mission have not examined the reasons why the Taliban                             applicant and the implied rejection of her administrative
Sanctions Committee included the applicants in its list. Nor                      complaint;
were the applicants given any opportunity to apprise them-
selves of and refute the allegations on which the decision to               —     require the defendant to pay to the applicant 85 % of the
include them in Annex I was based. The applicants have                            cost of surgery on her of BEF 200 234;
thus had onerous sanctions imposed on them without any
opportunity to defend themselves. The fundamental legal                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
principle of the right to a fair and equitable hearing has thus
been disregarded.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 is marred by
significant flaws, which points clearly to the need to consider
each individual case separately. At the same time, there are                1.    The applicant challenges the adverse decision of the
good reasons to doubt whether it is appropriate to impose                         Claims Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of
sanctions on the applicants.                                                      22 May 2001 relating to meeting the costs of operating
                                                                                on the applicant.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November
    2001 amending, for the fourth time, Council Regulation (EC)             2.    (a)   Infringement of Articles 24 and 72 of the Staff
    No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services                    Regulations, and of the Rules on sickness insurance
    to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the                      for officials of the European Communities (in par-
    freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the                     ticular of Article 1 and Annexes I and II).
    Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC)
    No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16).                                           (b) Infringment of the principles of good adminstration
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 pro-                            and of transparency.
    hibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
    strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and
    other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan,           (c)   Manifest error as to the facts and clear error of
    and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1).                     assessment.
                                                                                (d) Inadequate statement of grounds.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by R against the
         Commission of the European Communities                             Action brought on 27 December 2001 by José Marı́a Pujals
                                                                            Gomis against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-313/01)
                                                                                (Case T-332/01)
                           (2002/C 44/48)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/49)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by R, a                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission official, represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with                European Communities on 27 December 2001 by José
an address for service in Athens.                                           Marı́a Pujals Gomis, residing in Cerdanyola del Vallés (Spain),
                                                                            represented by Javier Pujals Gomis, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     grant the application in its entirety and in respect of all           —     Annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
      its claims;                                                                 COM/B/1/0 of 28 September 2001;


title: Case T-239/07: Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Pathé Distribution v EACEA

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/42

         Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Pathé Distribution v EACEA
   (Case T-239/07)
   (2007/C 211/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pathé Distribution (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Deprez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the contract No 2006-09120304D1021001FD1507 has not been validly terminated by the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency and remains in force;

               —

               Order the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 9 737 remaining payable to it under the contract.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests that the defendant be ordered to make payment of a sum equivalent to the balance remaining payable to it in implementation of contract No 2006-09120304D1021001FD1507 in relation to Community financial support of a project for videographic distribution of a film within the ‘MEDIA Plus’ programme adopted by Council Decision 2002/821/EC (1).
   The contract was signed by the parties on 27 June 2006 and an advance was paid by the defendant to the applicant as provided for by the contract. On 8 May 2007, the defendant sent a letter to the applicant purporting to terminate the contract on the ground that the real total costs were lower than the project's provisional budget and that no written explanation had been provided in the submitted financial report on the project, and requesting repayment of the sum paid as an advance. The applicant considers, however, that, as provided for in the contract, the defendant's contribution to the project was to be as high as 50 % of the real costs of videographic distribution, and accordingly requests payment of a sum still due in addition to the sum paid in advance.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that termination of the contract by the defendant is irregular and unfounded, since it has disregarded the terms of the contract as to the procedure for termination, and in particular, it has not allowed the applicant any period in which to respond on the implementation of the contract. According to the applicant, the Court should rule that the contract remains in force.
   Further, the applicant disputes the grounds of termination of the contract which are relied on by the defendant, namely failure to perform its contractual obligations.

      (1)  2000/821/EC: Council Decision of 20 December 2000 on the implementation of a programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus — Development, Distribution and Promotion) (2001-2005), OJ L 336, p. 82.


title: Case C-250/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Birgit Wagener v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 107(1) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 90 — Migrant workers — Currency conversion — Account taken of family benefits received in Switzerland at the time of the calculation, by a Member State, of dependent child allowance — Differential supplement — Date to be taken into account for the purposes of the conversion into euros of Swiss family benefits)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/7

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Birgit Wagener v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen
   (Case C-250/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 107(1) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 90 - Migrant workers - Currency conversion - Account taken of family benefits received in Switzerland at the time of the calculation, by a Member State, of dependent child allowance - Differential supplement - Date to be taken into account for the purposes of the conversion into euros of Swiss family benefits))
   2014/C 194/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Birgit Wagener

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 10(1)(a) and of Article 107(1), (2), (4) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1), of Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1), and of Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the rates of conversion referred to in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 C 106, p. 56) — National of a Member State residing with his family in his State of origin and working in the Swiss Confederation — Overlapping entitlement to family benefits — Account taken of family allowances received in Switzerland at the time of calculation of the benefits by the Member State of residence (‘Differenzkindergeld’) — Rate of conversion to be applied

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               In circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, the currency conversion of family allowances must be carried out in accordance with Article 107(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001.

               2)

               Article 107(6) of Regulation No 574/72 in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1386/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the currency conversion of family allowances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, for the purposes of calculating the differential supplement to family allowances under Article 10(1)(a) of that regulation, must be made at the official rate of exchange for the day on which those allowances are paid by the Member State in which the worker is employed.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.