title: Case C-456/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky lodged on 9 October 2007 — Karol Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky lodged on 9 October 2007 — Karol Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V
   (Case C-456/07)
   (2007/C 315/45)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Referring court
   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karol Mihal

      Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice V
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (‘the Sixth Directive’) to be interpreted as relating only to those bodies governed by public law which are legal persons and not natural persons; in other words, in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, are those bodies governed by public law which are legal persons to be considered non-taxable persons whilst those bodies governed by public law which are natural persons are to be considered taxable persons?

               2.

               Where national legislation contains a more restrictive definition of the group of persons not considered to be taxable persons (non-taxable persons) than that contained in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, is the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive to be considered as being directly effective?

               3.

               Are the activities of a natural person, such as those of a bailiff who exercises public power and is considered under national law to be a public official, to be considered those of a body governed by public law, in other words, is he not to be considered a taxable person in respect of activities and transactions in which he is involved as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive?


title: Case T-225/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/56

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission
   (Case T-225/10)
   2010/C 179/96
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it states that Article 12(5) TRLIS (Amended Law on Corporation Tax) contains elements of State aid;

               —

               In the alternative, annulment of Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it states that Article 12(5) TRLIS contains elements of State aid where it applies to share acquisitions which result in acquisition of control; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision against which the present action is brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission and T-221/10 Iberdrola v Commission.
   The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in the context of those cases.
   They allege, in essence, errors of law both in the legal classification of the measure as State aid and in identifying the beneficiaries of that measure.


title: Case C-96/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Insurance contract — Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract — Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered — Borrower’s total incapacity for work — Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA
   (Case C-96/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Insurance contract - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract - Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered - Borrower’s total incapacity for work - Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise))
   (2015/C 205/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean-Claude Van Hove

      Defendant: CNP Assurances SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work falls within the exception set out in that provision only where the referring court finds:

               —

               first, that, having regard to the nature, general scheme and the stipulations of the contractual framework of which it forms part, and to its legal and factual context, that term lays down an essential component of that contractual framework, and, as such, characterises it, and

               —

               secondly, that that term is drafted in plain, intelligible language, that is to say that it is not only grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but also that the contract sets out transparently the specific functioning of the arrangements to which the relevant term refers and the relationship between those arrangements and the arrangements laid down in respect of other contractual terms, so that that consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of precise, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-47/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Buschak v EFILWC (Staff cases — European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions — Job description of the post of deputy director — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Interest in bringing proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Buschak v EFILWC
   (Case F-47/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Job description of the post of deputy director - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Interest in bringing proceedings - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2010/C 134/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Willy Buschak (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Levy and C. Ronzi, lawyers, later by L. Levy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (represented by: C. Callanan, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Staff cases — Annulment of the decision amending the applicant's job description and an order that the defendant pay him a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Mr Busak is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 5.07.2008, p. 52.


title: Case C-479/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — French Republic v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 — Definition of the concept of drift nets — Thonaille — Duty to state reasons — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — French Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-479/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 - Definition of the concept of drift nets - ‘Thonaille’ - Duty to state reasons - Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
   2009/C 102/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, M.-M. Joséphidès and E. Chaboureau, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik and M.T. van Rijn, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘drift nets’ — Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ — Infringement of the duty to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

                  dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

                  orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297,8.12.2007.


C 118/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-368/99 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-343/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/82)                                                       (2001/C 118/85)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-368/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-343/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: La Che-          European Communities v France.
mise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-378/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/83)                                                       (2001/C 118/86)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 23 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-378/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/84)                                                       (2001/C 118/87)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 25 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/00: (reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-335/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Stratford): F. Harding v         European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Skandia Asset Management Ltd.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case F-84/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/52

         Action brought on 9 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-84/13)
   2013/C 325/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions and relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful and therefore inapplicable;

               —

               annul the decision of 26 November 2012 — and that of 27 June 2013 confirming it — concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-522/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 13 October 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Abdoul Khadre Mbaye

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Lecce (Italy) lodged on 13 October 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Abdoul Khadre Mbaye
   (Case C-522/11)
   2011/C 370/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Lecce

      Party to the main proceedings

   Abdoul Khadre Mbaye

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possible application of that directive even when the national legislation (Article 10a of Legislative Decree 286/98) penalises an illegal entry or stay by expulsion as an alternative to criminal law sanctions?

               2.

               Does the Community directive on the return of third-country nationals preclude criminal sanctions where a foreign national is merely unlawfully present on national territory, regardless of whether the administrative return procedure provided for by the national legislation and by the directive itself has been completed?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-491/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector — On-the-spot inspections)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/4

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-491/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector - On-the-spot inspections)
   2012/C 373/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez; subsequently by S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo and finally by A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-362/04: Action brought on 3 September 2004 by Leonid Minin against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/37

         Action brought on 3 September 2004 by Leonid Minin against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-362/04)
   (2004/C 273/70)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 September 2004 by Leonid Minin, represented by Tito Ballerino and Corso Bovio, Lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul point 13 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia;

               —

               annul that regulation in its entirety since it was adopted on the basis of an unlawful regulation (Regulation No 872/2004);

               —

               declare the inapplicablility of Regulation No 872/2004 under Article 241 EC.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case states that, by means of Regulation No 872/2004 of 29 April 2004, adopted on the basis of Council Common Position 2004/487/CFSP concerning the freezing of funds of the former Liberian President Charles Taylor and the persons and entities associated with him, the Community ordered the freezing of funds and economic resources owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by those persons and entities, as listed in Annex I. Subsequently, on the basis of Article 11(a) of Regulation No 872/2004, the Commission issued Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 which amended the abovementioned Annex I, and named the applicant as also being covered by the measure.
   In support of his claims, the applicant argues:

               —

               unlawfulness of Regulation No 872/2004 (1) and Regulation No 1149/2004 (2), in so far as the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, on the basis of which the Council Common Position 2004/487/CFSP was adopted, were addressed only to the Member States, as is apparent from the UN's status as a body having authority in international relations but no supranational power;

               —

               incorrect legal basis of the contested measures: Regulation No 872/2004 purports to have as its legal basis Articles 60 and 301 of the EC Treaty, despite the fact that the two regulations in question relate to matters which fall outside the scope of those articles;

               —

               infringement of the right to property, a fundamental right protected by the Community order;

               —

               breach of the rights of the defence, in so far as, first, the Community drafted the regulations in question in a roundabout way, issuing measures which are essentially a bundle of individual decisions and failing to carry out any real enquiry concerning the frozen funds, and secondly, the applicant is referred to in the measure by a series of personal descriptions for which no explanation is given and which may have misled the UN inspectors.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 of 29 April 2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (OJ L 162 of 30.4.2004, p. 32).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (OJ L 222 of 23.6.2004, p. 17).


title: Case T-434/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — TONO v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/47

         Action brought on 1 October 2008 — TONO v Commission
   (Case T-434/08)
   (2008/C 313/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: TONO (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: S. Teigum and A. Ringnes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant respectfully requests the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to:

               —

               Annul Article 3 of Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 3 of Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC with regard to cable retransmission;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the applicant's costs;

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435, of 16 July 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3, determining that the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA ‘by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society’. In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment of Article 3 of the contested decision with regards to cable retransmission.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated both by errors of fact and of law, as well the breach of the applicant's procedural guarantees relating to its right to be heard.
   With regards to the alleged errors of fact, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to acknowledge the system of collective licensing copyrights for musical works and thereby also the Norwegian factual context.
   With regards to the alleged errors of law, the applicant submits the following:
   First, the applicant claims that the contested decision suffers from a formal error which should result in the decision being repealed. Namely, the applicant argues that its right to be heard has been violated since the final decision differs from the statement of objections on a central point relating to the description of the infringement.
   Second, the applicant contests the fact that the inclusion of territorial delineation in the reciprocal agreements, in which it participated, is the result of concerted practices between the EEA CISAC members.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Commission erroneously concluded that the parallel territorial delineation as regards retransmission in cable is restrictive of competition in violation of Article 81(1) EC. According to the applicant, the alleged concerted practice on territorial delineation concerns a form of competition that is not in itself protected by Article 81(1) EC. In addition, the applicant argues that the Commission committed an error of fact when assuming that there is a national monopoly in Norway for multi-repertoire licensing of public performance rights covering retransmission in cable networks. Moreover, the applicant submits that, even if the alleged concerted practice was considered to restrict competition, it does not infringe Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate objective, having regard to the particular requirements of the management of licensing, performing rights, auditing, monitoring and enforcement in relation to re-transmission by cable.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the territorial delineations of its reciprocal agreements are exempted under Article 81(3) EC. The applicant's submission in this respect is that the abovementioned delineations are indispensable to the upholding of the efficient one-stop-shop principles and the Norwegian extended licensing system, thereby ensuring a minimum degree of administration, whilst at the same time safeguarding the interests of the rights holders.

      (1)  International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.


title: Case C-459/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Logistical support to the Iranian Government — Inclusion of the appellant’s name)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/11

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-459/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Logistical support to the Iranian Government - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))
   (2016/C 402/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case T-29/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/28

         Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
   (Case T-29/15)
   (2015/C 081/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller and C. Farrell, Solicitors, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the amended Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union adopted on 16 December 2014; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant did not comply with the requirements provided in Article 53(d)(l) of the 2002 Financial Regulation (1) and Article 60(2) of the 2012 Financial Regulation (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there were no changes to the standards applied in the applicant’s account, audit, internal control or procurement systems that would justify a decision by the European Commission to conclude that the applicant could no longer be entrusted with budget implementation tasks.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to respect principles of good administration and sound financial management.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligations related to the principle of transparency.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the applicant with a route to redress.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that Commission failed in its duty to give reasons.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested measures constitutes a breach of the applicant’s right to legitimate expectation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, of 25 June 2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 October 2012, on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).


title: Case C-86/01: Action brought on 21 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
21.4.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
di Cassazione, by order of that court of 11 December
2000 in the case of Istituto Nazionale Della Previdenza
             Sociale (INPS) v Anna Maria Venturi                        (1) declare that, by
                          (Case C-84/01)                                      —     failing to guarantee, with respect to the Federal
                                                                                Länder of Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria,
                                                                                Salzburg and Vienna, the entitlement in law of
                         (2001/C 118/26)                                            natural and legal persons to free access to infor-
                                                                                mation requested concerning the environment, pur-
                                                                                suant to Article 3(1) of Council Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of
European Communities by an order of the Corte Suprema di                            access to information on the environment (1), by
Cassazione of 12 December 2000, which was received at the                           granting such access in the form either of disclosure
Court Registry on 19 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling                        of the documents concerned or of the provision of
in the case of Istituto Nazionale Della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)                   copies thereof.,
v Anna Maria Venturi, on the following question:
                                                                              —     laying down, in the Federal Länder of Burgenland,
Is it permissible under Article 4(3) of Directive 80/987/EEC of                     Carinthia, Salzburg, Lower Austria and Vienna,
20 October 1980 (1) — which provides that, in order to avoid                        exceptions to the right of free access to information
the payment of sums going beyond the social objective of the                        which are not contained in Article 3(2) and (3) of
Directive, Member States may set a ceiling to the liability for                     the directive;
employees’ outstanding claims in respect of the last three
months of the employment relationship — to require sacrifice                  —     failing to ensure, with respect to the Federal Länder
of part of the claims of those who received pay in excess of                        of Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg,
the ceiling and have received in the last three months of their                     Styria and Vienna, that within a period of two
employment relationship advances equal to or in excess of                           months the authorities either make the requested
that ceiling, whereas those who received pay below the ceiling                      information available or refuse the request, in
may then, through aggregation of any advances paid by the                           accordance with Article 3(4) of the directive;
employer with the payments made by the public body, secure
full satisfaction of their claims (or of a higher percentage
thereof)?                                                                     —     failing to ensure, with respect to the Federal Länder
                                                                                of Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg
                                                                                and Vienna, that bodies with responsibilities for
(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 3.                                                     the environment and under the control of public
                                                                                authorities are obliged to provide information,
                                                                        the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        the said Directive 90/313/EEC;
                                                                        (2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Action brought on 21 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                             Austria
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are apparent from the
                          (Case C-86/01)                                claims made in the application. In the case of Austria, the
                                                                        time-limit for transposition of the directive in accordance with
                                                                        Article 168 of the Act of Accession expired on 1 January
                         (2001/C 118/27)                                1995.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              (1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
21 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-283/01: Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/17
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  The applicant argues that the remission application should be
                                                                          granted, not least because the Commission did not give a
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             decision within the nine-month time-limit prescribed by
                                                                          Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code.
                                                                          The applicant further claims that it has been the victim of
                                                                          organised crime and that the theft of the lorry occurred in
                                                                          ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 239 of
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG
                                                                              down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                              (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                          (Case T-282/01)                                 (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                           (2002/C 44/33)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans
AG, established at Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represent-           Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización
ed by J. Weigell, lawyer.                                                 de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-283/01)
—     annul the Commission’s decision (REM 19/00) of 18 July
      2001 finding the remission of import duty by the Federal                                      (2002/C 44/34)
      Republic of Germany to the applicant to be unjustified,
      and authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant
      to Article 908(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), to                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      remit to the applicant, in accordance with its application
      of 28 May 1998, duty already paid in the sum of
      DEM 395 392,01;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 November 2001 by Organiza-
                                                                          ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                          office is at Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Garcia-Gallardo and Javier Guillén Carrau, lawyers.
In May 1997 the applicant despatched, at a principal customs
office in Belgium, 12 110 000 cigarettes under the external               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community transit procedure for transportation from
Antwerp to Montenegro, the customs office of destination
                                                                          —     declare the present application admissible;
being in Austria. During a stop at a motorway rest area, the
lorry and the consignment which it was carrying were
stolen; the lorry driver reported the theft immediately at the            —     annul the act which is the subject of the present
competent police headquarters.                                                  application, by which the European Commission has
                                                                                reduced the quantities eligible for compensatory allow-
                                                                                ance in respect of OPTUC, namely, Article 2(2) of and the
The parties are in dispute concerning the question whether, on                  annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2001 of
the facts, the defendant is obliged, pursuant to Article 239 of                 20 August 2001 providing for compensation to producer
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), to authorise the Federal                       organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry
Republic of Germany to remit the customs duties already paid.                   between 1 October and 31 December 2000 (1);
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
—     order any other measure which the Court may deem                   —     in the alternative, declare the decision in question void in
      appropriate requiring the Commission to fulfil its obli-                 its entirety;
      gations under Article 233 EC and, more specifically,
      requiring the Commission to reexamine the situation;
                                                                         —     annul the applicant’s commitment as set out in para-
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                      graph 72 of the decision;
      pay all the costs.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Spanish organisation of producers of frozen
tunny which has previously challenged before the Court of                Pleas in law and main arguments
First Instance a number of Commission regulations providing
for compensatory allowances granted to producer organis-
ations for the tuna supplied to the Community processing
industry in the quarters between 1 July 1999 and 30 September            Since 1991 the applicant has operated what is currently the
2000 (2), challenges in the present case the regulation relating         only system covering the whole of Germany for the collection
to the period between 1 October and 31 December 2000.                    and recovery of used sales packaging bearing its trade mark
                                                                         ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ (‘Green Dot’). The applicant organises
                                                                         regular collections of packaging from nearly all private house-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 holds in Germany. The applicant grants domestic and foreign
advanced in Case T-142/01 (3).                                           manufacturers and/or distributors the right to mark sales
                                                                         packaging covered by the applicant’s exemption system under
(1) OJ 2001 L 224, p. 4.
                                                                         the terms of a uniform agreement on use of the mark.
(2) Case T-142/01.
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         In September 1992 the applicant notified the Commission of
                                                                         its statutes and a sample of the agreements underlying the
                                                                         system. In January 1996, at the request of the defendant, the
                                                                         applicant gave the commitment on joint use set out in
                                                                         paragraph 71 of the contested decision and subject to various
                                                                         restrictions. In March 1997 the Commission announced its
Action brought on 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne                          intention to take a favourable view of all the agreements
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft                     notified pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 (1).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-289/01)
                                                                         By decision of 20 April 2001 the Commission required the
                                                                         applicant also to allow the use of the ‘Green Dot’ mark for
                          (2002/C 44/35)                                 packaging which is not part of the applicant’s system but part
                                                                         of that of a competitor and is intended for disposal by that
                   (Language of the case: German)                        competitor. The applicant brought an action against that
                                                                         decision before the Court of First Instance (2).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               In June 2001 the defendant informed the applicant that it
European Communities on 27 November 2001 by Der Grüne                    intended to attach conditions to the the decision on exemption.
Punkt — Duales System Deutschland Aktiengesellschaft, Co-                According to the applicant those conditions go far beyond the
logne (Germany), represented by W. Deselaers, B. Meyring and             commitment given by the applicant. On 17 September 2001
E. Wagner, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    the defendant finally issued the contested decision on exemp-
                                                                         tion subject to two such conditions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare Article 3(a) and (b) of the Decision of the                The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3(a) and (b) of
      defendant of 17 September 2001 (C(2001) 2672 final)                that decision and submits that the conditions imposed in it
      relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty         prejudice its legal position as it is forced to accept the use of
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement void;                          its collection and sorting facilities by competitors.


title: Case C-600/13: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Matera — Italy) — Intelcom Service Ltd v Vincenzo Mario Marvulli (Request for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/10

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Matera — Italy) — Intelcom Service Ltd v Vincenzo Mario Marvulli
   (Case C-600/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 37 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 60 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - National legislation granting notaries the exclusive right to draft and authenticate deeds relating to the sale of immovable property - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 261/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Matera

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Intelcom Service Ltd

      Defendant: Vincenzo Mario Marvulli

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling presented by the Giudice di pace di Matera (Italy) by decision of 22 April 2013 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case F-93/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 — HE v Commission

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/58

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 — HE v Commission
      (Case F-93/15)
      (2016/C 364/77)
      Language of the case: French
      The Single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


10.6.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 163/35
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A and                             Removal from the register of Case T-179/96 (1)
Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A. against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                                         (2000/C 163/70)
                          (Case T-103/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          By order of 17 December 1999, the President of the First
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (2000/C 163/69)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-179/96: J. Antonissen v Council of the European Union
                                                                          and Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A,
established in Logroño, Spain, and by Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A.
established in Alava, Spain, represented by Javier Lazcano-                      Removal from the register of Case T-316/97 (1)
Iturburu Ayestaran, lawyer.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                     By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     incompatible with the common market and requires the                 Case T-316/97: Hermı́nia F. dos Santos Morais Antas v Council
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-509/97 to T-517/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission (1).                                                                                (2000/C 163/72)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
It is alleged, in particular, that the Commission has misused its
powers in alleging the existence of State aid with a view to              By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
achieving the objective of fiscal harmonisation.                          Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-509/97 to T-517/97: Maria de Lurdes Esteves Afonso
                                                                          and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                          of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case F-142/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — ZZ v Eurojust

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/30

         Action brought on 24 December 2014 — ZZ v Eurojust
   (Case F-142/14)
   (2015/C 081/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ekkehard H. Schulze, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Eurojust

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the second phase of the selection procedure, in the context of his candidature for the post of Advisor to the Office of the President of Eurojust.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions of 8 August 2014 and 25 September 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to admit the applicant to participate further in the selection process; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-223/95)

text:
No C 229/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Question 4 :                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                       Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of                  AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      Case C-223 /95
amount charged as consideration for a specific service —                                           95 /C 229/22 )
such as for example registration of the formation or increase
in capital of a public limited company or a private limited
company — is to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the specific service — registration — or can the duty for           European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
the individual registration be fixed at for example a basic            ( Finance Court) Hamburg of 7 June 1995 , which was
charge together with 4 per mille of the nominal capital                received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 , for a
subscribed, so that the amount of the duty is independent of           preliminary ruling in the case of A. Moksel AG v.
the registration authority's time used and other costs                 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg Jonas
necessary for effecting the registration ?                             on the following question :
                                                                       Is Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 ( ] ) in the
Question 5:
                                                                       version of 27 November 1987, as rectified on 8 December
                                                                       1988 , in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of      be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also cover
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the             products which were imported into the Federal Republic of
Member State in calculating any amount to be recovered                 Germany from the former German Democratic Republic in
must work on the basis that the duty must reflect the cost of          the period from 24 May to 22 June 1990 pursuant to an
the specific service at the time at which the service is               exceptional authorization for the processing of transit-trade
performed, or is the Member State entitled to make a                   goods and exported to a third country on 10 January
comprehensive assessment over a longer period, for example             1991 ?
an accounting year or within the period in which it will
be possible under national law to assert a claim for
                                                                       (') OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
recovery ?
Question 6:
If national law contains a general principle that, in
determining claims for recovery of charges made without                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the requisite authority, importance should be attached to              Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
the fact that the charge was made in pursuance of rules                Valentino in A.C. — by order of 15 December 1994 in the
which have been in force over a long period without either                     criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini
the authorities or other parties having been aware that the                                    ( Case C-224/95
charge was unauthorized, will Community law preclude
dismissal on those grounds of an action for recovery of                                           ( 95/C 229/23 )
charges levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Question 7:                                                           European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
                                                                       Valentino in A.C. ( Magistrate's Court, Pescara; Separate
Does Community law make it impossible under national                    Division of San Valentino in AC ) of 15 December 1994,
law for the authorities of a Member State, in cases of claims          which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 ,
for recovery concerning charges made contrary to Directive              for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
 69/335/EEC , to contend and establish that national                    Anselmo Savini on the following questions :
 limitation periods start to run from a time at which
 an unlawful implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC
 occurred ?                                                             1 . Does EEC legislation provide for the exclusion from the
                                                                            definition of waste and the relevant rules relating to the
                                                                            protection of health ( and ) of the environment of
 Question 8:                                                                substances and objects which are capable of economic
                                                                            reutilization ?
 Does Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of
 Directive 69/335/EEC as interpreted in the foregoing                   2 . Does the concept of waste arising out of Council
 questions result in rights on which citizens in the individual             Directive 156/91 /EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
 Member States may rely before the national courts ?                        Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (') and Council
                                                                            Directive     689/91 /EEC     of  12  December   1991     on
 (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                 dangerous waste ( 2 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 259/93 ( 3 ) cover any substance which the addressee
                                                                            disposes of, has decided to dispose of or is under a duty
                                                                            to dispose of, regardless of the fact that the substance to


title: Case T-273/03: Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 251/14              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
The applicant further alleges: breach of the duty to give                contested Decision. The opening of the procedure was not
reasons for decisions, the duty to have regard for the welfare           properly based on public health considerations. Furthermore,
of officials and of the principle of sound administration;               the referral and the opening of the procedure covered the
manifest error of assessment; breach of the principle of                 entire content of the SPC. This goes beyond the permissible
legitimate expectations; and, finally, misuse of powers.                 scope of an Article 30 referral, and such a procedure does not
                                                                         allow for the adoption of a harmonised SPC. Moreover, the
                                                                         opening of the procedure lacked proper reasoning.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicants submit that the harmonisation of
                                                                         the SPCs in the contested Decision was illegal, since the
                                                                         Commission did not have the power to adopt the Decision.
                                                                         In the alternative, the applicants argue that even if the
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by Merck Sharp &                         Commission could, in principle, have harmonised the SPCs
Dohme Limited and 8 others against the Commission of                     for RENITEC, the Commission has failed to identify any public
                 the European Communities                                health reasons justifying the harmonisation of the SPCs.
                        (Case T-273/03)
                        (2003/C 251/27)                                  The applicants finally claim that the contested Decision is
                                                                         illegal because binding time-limits of the Directive were not
                  (Language of the case: English)                        observed and because the Commission and the Committee for
                                                                         Proprietary Medicinal Products failed to provide sufficient rea-
                                                                         soning.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 1 August 2003 by Merck
Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, (United Kingdom),                      (1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., Haalem, (Netherlands),                             Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products
Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, (France),                   for human use (OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67).
MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, (Germany), Merck Sharp
& Dohme (Italia) SpA., Rome, (Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme,
LDA, Paço de Arcos, (Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de
Espana S.A., Madrid, (Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.
H., Vienna, (Austria), and VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, (Greece),
represented by Mr G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     annul the contested Decision;                                                                (Case T-275/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 251/28)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
The applicants are Marketing Authorization Holders of the
medicinal product RENITEC and associated trade names.
RENITEC contains the active ingredient ‘enalapril’ and is used           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
in treatment of hypertension and heart failure.                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants challenge the Commission Decision C(2003)                 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich
1752 of 21 May 2003 concerning the placing on the market                 (Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer. ECI Telecom
of medicinal products for human use containing the substance             Ltd., Petach Tikva (Israel) was also a party to the proceedings
‘enalapril’ by which the Commission harmonised the Summary               before the Board of Appeal.
of Product Characteristics (‘SPC’) for RENITEC and associated
trade names. The contested Decision was adopted as a result of
a referral procedure under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Parliament and the Council (1).
                                                                         —     annul Decision No 2055/2001 of the Opposition
The applicants argue that the initiation of the Article 30                     Division of the defendant of 27 August 2001 in opposi-
procedure was illegal and that that entails the illegality of the              tion proceedings B 288680;


title: Case C-40/99: Action brought on 11 February 1999 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 136/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.5.1999
Action brought on 11 February 1999 by Kingdom of                             for each creditor but rather in the context of judicial
Spain against Commission of the European Communities                         proceedings, and are not valid unless approved by the
                                                                             court after ascertaining that the conditions laid down in
                                                                             the Law (Ley de Suspensión de Pagos — Law on Suspension
                           (Case C-40/99)                                    of Payments) are fulfilled.
                                                                             The requirement as to aid which favours ‘certain under-
                         (1999/C 136/09)                                     takings or the production of certain goods’ has not been
                                                                             fulfilled, since the agreed release from debts does not
                                                                             reflect a desire to favour a particular undertaking, nor is
An action against the Commission of the European Com-                        that its effect: what is involved here is the cancellation of
munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                      debts in order to avoid greater loss to creditors. The
European Communities on 11 February 1999 by the Kingdom                      purpose of the release from debts granted in the proceed-
of Spain, represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                      ings for suspension of payments essentially lies in renounc-
Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     ing part of the debt in order to recover the remainder. The
Spanish Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.                                   alternative would be to recover much less or nothing at
                                                                             all.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (Plea seeking annulment of the decision as
                                                                          a whole)
— annul the Commissions decision of 28 October 1998
    whereby it declares the Kingdom of Spain to have granted
    State aid, contrary to and incompatible with the EC Treaty,           — Error as to the facts.
    to HAMSA, and demands its repayment; and
                                                                          — Infringement of Article 93(3)(a) of the EC Treaty in
— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                          conjunction with Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
                                                                             purpose of the authorities of the Comunidad Autónoma
                                                                             de Andalucı́a in granting aid to HAMSA was merely to
                                                                             avoid the loss of more than 500 jobs in a region with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              highest unemployment rate not only in Spain but in the
                                                                             Community. The Commission’s meagre reasons for not
                                                                             applying Article 93(3)(a) are inconsistent in inasmuch as
(Plea seeking partial annulment)                                             they are based on the claim that the aid is not for the
                                                                             promotion of investment or the measures of a general
                                                                             nature.
— Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations (aid
    granted before May 1995): the Commission has declared
    aid granted under a previously approved scheme to be                  — Infringement of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
    contrary to the Treaty.
                                                                             The Kingdom of Spain is of the view that the rescue aid
                                                                             granted to HAMSA during the period from May to
— According to the Commission, the capitalisation of the                     December 1995 complies strictly with the guidelines of 23
    loans received by HAMSA from the Instituto de Fomento                    December 1994 and is therefore compatible with the
    de Andalucı́a (IFA) constituted State aid inasmuch as                    Treaty.
    it constituted injection of capital under circumstances
    unacceptable to a private investor. None the less, IFA’s                 The decision wrongly claims that the aid granted from
    purpose in increasing capital in order to offset debts                   January 1996 is not restructuring aid.
    concerned control of the company. The purpose of funding
    the loans was therefore not to inject new capital into the
    undertaking. The funding operation placed HAMSA in a                  — Breach of the principle of legal certainty and rights of
    better position from which to enter into agreements in the               defence: the applicant believes it is contrary to legal
    future with its creditors, both public and private, in order             certainty and the rights of defence for the Commission to
    to remove its suspension of payments, thus reinforcing its               base its decision on the failure to comply with requirements
    credibility vis-à-vis its public and private creditors. In short,        laid down in special provisions applied by the Commission
    this, in turn, would be of benefit to IFA itself in its capacity         until 1 January 1998 in the agricultural sector in matters
    as shareholder. The Spanish authorities are of the view that             of rescue packages and restructuring whose existence it
    any private investor in IFA’s place would have opted for a               asserts but which it has never specified.
    similar course of action.
                                                                          — Infringement of Articles 190 and 92(1) of the EC Treaty
— To characterise as State aid the measures adopted by                       on the ground of failure to state in what way trade between
    various public bodies in the context of judicial proceedings             Member States would be affected and inasmuch as that is
    for the suspension of payments is contrary to Article 92 of              not the case.
    the EC Treaty. Such characterisation puts in question
    Spanish legislation on competition proceedings, which is
    similar to that of other Member States. Such measures are
    not decided upon in isolation on a case-by-case basis


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-335/97 (1)                 from the register of Case C-125/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                       (2001/C 118/88)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-335/97: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp): Rijksdienst voor Pen-
sioenen v Wim Westenborg.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-105/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/91)
                                                                      By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-222/00 (1)                 from the register of Case C-105/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic .
                       (2001/C 118/89)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-222/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-225/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/92)
                                                                      By order of 8 March 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-125/00 (1)                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-225/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 118/90)                                ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Sociale Verzeke-
                                                                      ringsbank v Yamna Moughit.
By order of 14 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-113/04 P: Appealbrought on 3 March 2004 by Technische Unie BVagainst the judgment of 16 December 2003 by theCourt of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op ElektrotechnischGebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, supportedby CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/28

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2004 by Technische Unie BV against the judgment of 16 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd.
   (Case C-113/04 P)
   (2004/C 106/49)
   An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2004 by Technische Unie BV, represented by P.V.F. Bos and C. Hubert, advocaten, against the judgment of 16 December 2003 delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T–5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd.

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               set aside the judgment of 16 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T–5/00 and T-6/00, at least in so far as it relates to Case T-6/00, and, regard being had to the form of order sought under (2), dispose of the case itself or, in the alternative, set the judgment aside and refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance for further consideration;

               (2)

               annul in its entirety, or at least in part, the decision of the European Commission of 26 October 1999 addressed to Technische Unie, or at least, ruling afresh, decide to reduce substantially the fine imposed on the appellant; and

               (3)

               order the European Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the first place, the Court of First Instance infringed EC law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights, and at any rate provided incomprehensible reasoning in that regard, in ruling that the fact that the period within which the procedure was concluded went beyond what was reasonable could not justify annulment of the Commission decision or an additional reduction in the fine.
   Second, the Court of First Instance breached Community law, inasmuch as there is internal inconsistency and thus a lack of proper reasoning with regard to the equivocal manner in which it attached significance to the date on which the warning letter was issued.
   Third, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided incomprehensible reasoning, in ruling that the Commission would have had good grounds for finding Technische Unie liable for the infringements referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision.
   Fourth, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided defective reasoning, in treating earlier the breaches referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision as (continuing) breaches over the periods taken into account and in subsequently taking into account, for the duration of the breach referred to in Article 3 of the decision, the same periods as those which related to the breaches mentioned earlier.
   Fifth, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided inadequate reasoning, in not allowing an additional reduction in the fine, notwithstanding the misappraisal of the duration of the breaches and the infringement of the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable period.


title: Case C-559/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
   (Case C-559/14)
   (2015/C 089/02)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

      Defendant: Recoletos Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 April 1997 in Case T-541/93: James Connaughton and Others v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Legal effects - Admissibility)

text:
14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181/11
2 . orders the applicants to bear jointly and severally the               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs incurred by the defendant;
                                                                                of 16 April 1997
                                                                       in Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton and Others v.
                                                                                Council of the European Union f )
3.   orders the interveners to bear their own costs .
                                                                       (Action for annulment — Milk — Additional levy —
                                                                       Reference quantity — Producers who entered into non-
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                       marketing or conversion undertakings — Compensation
                                                                       — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Legal effects —
                                                                                Admissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /22 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 15 April 1997
in Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                  In Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton, Thomas
Thamann v. Commission of the European Communities ( ! )                Fitzsimons and Patrick Griffin, residing respectively at
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Control of               Kilbeggan, Askeaton and Clonmel ( Ireland ), represented
  classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)            by James O'Reilly SC, of the Irish Bar, and Philippa
                                                                       Watson, Barrister, of the Irish Bar, instructed by Oliver
                           ( 97/C 181 /21 )                            Ryan-Purcell , Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-
                                                                       Pierre Brasseur, against Council of the European Union,
                                                                        ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Michael Bishop ),
                (Language of the case: German)                         supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        ( Agents: Gerard Rozet and Xavier Lewis ) and the United
                                                                       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
                                                                        initially John D. Colahan, subsequently S. T. Braviner) —
In Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                   application , pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, for
Thamann, of Neuenkirchen ( Germany ), represented by                    annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
Wilhelm Clages, Gerd Rentzmann and Rudolf Brenken,                      22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to
Rechtsanwälte, Quakenbrück, with an address for service                 certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre                 prevented from carrying on their trade . ( OJ No L 196 ,
Feltgen and Andre Harpes, 14a , rue des Bains, against                  1993 , p. 6 ), in particular Articles 8 and 14 thereof — the
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Claudia Schmidt and Georg M. Berrisch ) — application                  Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W.
for an award of damages under Article 178 and the                       Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty against                Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
the Commission for damage allegedly suffered by the                     on 16 April 1997, in which it:
 applicants as a result of a series of decisions adopted by
the Commission to control classical swine fever in the
 Federal Republic of Germany — the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ),                 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
 composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi
 and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: A. Mair, Administrator,
 has given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                        2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                             pay those incurred by the Council;
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         3 . orders the United Kingdom and the Commission to
                                                                             bear their own costs .
 2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      O OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 December 2016 in Case E-3/16 — Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA and Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Competition Authority (Article 53 EEA — Restriction of competition by object — Public procurement — Submission of joint bids through a joint management company)

text:
               27.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 22 December 2016
   in Case E-3/16
   Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA and Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Competition Authority
   (Article 53 EEA — Restriction of competition by object — Public procurement — Submission of joint bids through a joint management company)
   (2017/C 133/05)
   In Case E-3/16, Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA and Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Competition Authority — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 53 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 December 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               For an agreement to be regarded as a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 53(1) EEA, it must reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition. It does not suffice that it is simply capable, having regard to the specific legal and economic context, of resulting in the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.

               2.

               In order to determine whether an agreement between undertakings or a decision by an association of undertakings reveals a sufficient degree of harm to competition, regard must be had to the content of its provisions, its objectives and the economic and legal context of which it forms part. When determining that context, it is also necessary to take into consideration the nature of the services affected, as well as the real conditions of the functioning and structure of the market or markets in question. In addition, although the parties’ intention is not a necessary factor in determining whether an agreement between undertakings is restrictive, there is nothing prohibiting the competition authorities, the national courts or the Court from taking that factor into account.

               3.

               An agreement reveals a sufficient degree of harm to competition that it may be considered a restriction of competition by object only if its harmful nature is easily identifiable. That assessment cannot go as far as a full examination of its actual or potential effects. Nor can it amount to carrying out an assessment of the pro- and anticompetitive effects and thus to applying a rule of reason.

               4.

               In order to determine whether the submission of joint bids through a joint management company reveals a sufficient degree of harm that it may be considered a restriction of competition by object, regard must be had to the substance of the cooperation, its objectives and the economic and legal context of which it forms part. The parties’ intention may also be taken into account, although this is not a necessary factor.

               5.

               Since the submission of joint bids involves price-fixing, which is expressly prohibited by Article 53(1) EEA, consideration of the economic and legal context may be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to establish the existence of a restriction of competition by object. However, such an assessment needs to take into account, albeit in an abridged manner, whether the parties to an agreement are actual or potential competitors and whether the joint setting of the price offered to the contracting authority constitutes an ancillary restraint.

               6.

               While the disclosure of the joint nature of the bids to the contracting authority may be an indication that the parties did not intend to infringe the prohibition on agreements between undertakings, that, in itself, is not a prerequisite for determining whether an agreement may be considered a restriction of competition by object.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02, Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Permanent post remunerated on research and investment credits — Temporary agent within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the CEOS — Rejection of application — No comparative examination of merits — Interim judgment)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 March 2004
   in Case T-10/02, Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff case - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Permanent post remunerated on research and investment credits - Temporary agent within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the CEOS - Rejection of application - No comparative examination of merits - Interim judgment)
   (2004/C 118/77)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-10/02, Marie-Claude Girardot resident in L'Hay-les-Roses (France), represented by N. Lhoest, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Cuvieusart and L. Lozano Palacios, then F. Clotuche-Cuvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) - Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 March 2001 rejecting seven applications for permanent posts remunerated on research credits, secondly, annulment of the Commission's decision of 15 March 2001 rejecting one application for a permanent post remunerated on research credits and, thirdly, annulment of the Commission's decisions making appointments in respect of those posts - the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President and H. Legal and M. E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 31 March 2004, in which it

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 13 March 2001 rejecting seven applications for permanent posts remunerated on research credits;

               2.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 15 March 2001 rejecting one application for a permanent post remunerated on research credits;

               3.

               For the rest dismisses the application

               4.

               Orders the parties to provide to the Court within a period of three months from delivery of this judgment either an agreed amount of monetary compensation attaching to the decisions of 13 and 15 March 2001 or their submissions, with figures, on that amount;

               5.

               Reserves costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002