title: Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-72/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/ 18            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
      91 /689/EEC of     12     December    1991    on hazardous               procedure from being conducted under the Federal
      waste 0 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                 Procurement Law for awards of contracts for services,
      obligations under the EC Treaty,                                         and must such a national court conduct a review
                                                                               procedure in accordance with the fourth part of the
                                                                               Federal Procurement Law ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        3 . ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 (with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/
                                                                                EEC ) to be classified as services coming under
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            Annex IA, category No 2 ( land transport services )
                                                                                and contracts for such services are thus to be
relied on in Case C-56/97 ( 2); the time-limit expired on
26 June 1995 .                                                                      awarded in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                                Titles II and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
                                                                                classified as services coming under Annex IB of
(') OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 20 .                                           Directive 92/50/EEC ( health ) with the result that
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                                          contracts for such services are to be awarded in
                                                                                accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 and
                                                                                14, or do those services fall outside the sphere of
                                                                                application of Directive 92/50/EEC ?
                                                                               ( b) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7, points 14 and
Reference        for    a preliminary ruling by the                                 16 , satisfy the preconditions laid down in the Van
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that court of 5 December                               Duyn Judgment on the direct applicability of a
1996 in the case of Walter Togel against                                            Community Directive, with the result that services
            Niederosterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse                               coming under Annex IB of the Directive are to be
                          ( Case C-76/97)
                                                                                awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or
                                                                                are the relevant provisions of the Directive for the
                            ( 97/C 108/34 )                                         services mentioned in Annex 1A capable of
                                                                                fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the
                                                                                abovementioned case ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                   4 . Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the EEC
 ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 5 December 1996,
                                                                               Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an obligation
received at the Court Registry on 20 February 1997, for a                      on the State to interfere in existing legal situations
preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Togel against                         concluded for an indefinite period or for several years
Niederosterreichische           Gebietskrankenkasse      on    the
                                                                                but which were not entered into in accordance with
 following questions:                                                           the abovementioned Directive ?
  1 . May an individual derive, from Article 1 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )           H OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
       and Article 2 ( 1 ) or other provisions of Council                ( 2 ) OJ No L 209, 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
       Directive 89/665/EEC ( ] ) on the coordination of the
       laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       relating to the application of review procedures to the
       award of public supply and public works contracts, a
       specific right to have review proceedings conducted
       before authorities or courts which comply with the
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary                 ruling from the
       provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC,
                                                                         Handelsgericht Wien by order                of that court of
       which right is so sufficiently precise and specific that,         20 December 1996 in the case of Osterreichische Unilever
       in the event of non-transposition of the Directive in                  GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH
       question by the Member State, an individual may
       successfully assert that legal right against that Member                                      ( Case C-77/97)
       State in legal proceedings ?                                                                    ( 97/C 108/35
  2 . In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
        individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        92/50/EEC (2 ) in conjunction with Directive 89/665/              European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
        EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a                 Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 20 December 1996 ,
        national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement              which was received at the Court Registry on 21 February
        Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Osterreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham
        national law such as Section 91 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG, which
        confer on the Federal Procurement Office powers of                 Markenartikel GesmbH on the following question:
        review only in the case of infringements of the Federal
        Procurement law and regulations adopted thereunder,                Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
        on the ground that those provisions preclude a feview              Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the


title: Case F-7/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/47

         Action brought on 21 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-7/15)
   (2015/C 089/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of decisions establishing the rights of the applicants with regard to reimbursement of their annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union as well as the decisions to be adopted annually from 2015 and the rejection of an application for an order that the Commission reimburse their actual expenses in respect of annual travel to their place of origin, calculated on the basis of the aforementioned provision, as applied prior to the entry into force of the amended Staff Regulations in 2014.

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions establishing the rights of the applicants with regard to their annual travel under Article 8 of Annex VII to the EU Staff Regulations, as in force from 1 January 2015, since that decision was disclosed for the first time in their pay slips for June 2014, issued on 12 June 2014;

               —

               Annul any other decision to be adopted annually, from 2015, under that provision;

               —

               Annul, as appropriate, the decision of 15 October 2014 rejecting their claim;

               —

               Order the defendant to reimburse the applicants’ expenses in respect of their annual travel to their place of origin covering their actual expenses and on the basis of the aforementioned provision, as applied prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations in 2014, that amount being increased by default interest as from 12 June 2014, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations as applicable during the period in question, increased by three percentage points, until the day of payment of the sum so due;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the entire costs.


title: Case C-579/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: P. Mook

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: P. Mook
   (Case C-579/10)
   2011/C 72/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: P. Mook

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State levies a tax on the first use on the road network in its territory of a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, has been borrowed from a resident of that other Member State and has been driven for private purposes by a resident of the first Member State between those two Member States?


title: Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/23

         Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)
   (Case T-467/11)
   2011/C 319/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and

               —

               Reject the opposition

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘360° SONIC ENERGY’, for ‘toothbrushes’ in class 21 — Community trade mark application No 6236533

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 842882 of the word mark ‘SONIC POWER’, for goods in classes 3 and 21

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-380/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/107)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 July 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-380/03, Korn-og Foderstof Kompagniet v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-614/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Garner CAD Technic and Others v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/16

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Garner CAD Technic and Others v Commission
   (Case T-614/11)
   2012/C 39/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Garner CAD Technic GmbH (Weßling, Germany), GCT Design Organisation GmbH (Weßling), SG Aerospace GmbH (Weßling) (represented by: R. Zehetmeier-Müller, M. Schweda, C. Wünschmann, F. Loose, I. Dörr and J. Eggers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is not State aid
               The applicants submit in this connection inter alia that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) does not have the selective effect required by Article 107(1) TFEU as it does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. In addition, the applicants take the view that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses does not constitute an exception to the reference system under German tax law of the fundamentally unrestricted carry forward of losses and the transfer of losses between different tax periods, but helps to give effect to that reference system.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity as there is no differentiation between economic operators who are in a comparable factual and legal position as regards the objective pursued
               The applicants submit in that regard that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses favours all undertakings which have the legal form of a corporation under the same conditions and without any scope for discretion. The applicants take the view that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is a general fiscal policy measure, which for that reason is not subject to the prohibition on aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is justified on the basis of the general scheme of the German tax system
               In this connection the applicants submit that even if the Commission’s view were to be accepted and it were to be assumed that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is selective in nature, the selectivity would be justified on the constitutional principles of taxation according to ability to pay, the prevention of excessive taxation and respect for the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: there are no subsidies from State resources to the applicants
               The applicants submit that there have been no subsidies from State resources to them. In that regard they submit inter alia that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses does not confer a new financial advantage on the loss-bearing corporation, but merely maintains an already existing financial position, which is established according to the principle of the unrestricted carry forward of losses and the transfer of losses between different tax periods.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment on the basis of insufficient consideration of the position under German tax law
               The applicants submit in that regard inter alia that the Commission failed to have regard to the relevant provisions of German tax law and that the contested decision therefore contains serious errors.


title: Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-233/96)

text:
No C 269/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14 . 9 . 96
— in the alternative , consider those corrections to be                   some improvements in the public storage system run by
     disproportionate in amount,                                          ONIC ( National Cereals Trades Board ) and led the
                                                                          Commission unexpectedly to propose a financial
                                                                          correction, as from the financial year 1992 , whereas
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                          initially it had contemplated the possibility of financial
                                                                          corrections only for the financial year 1993 , before
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       ruling out any correction with regard to the results of the
                                                                          mission monitoring intervention stocks in 1993 .
( As regards expenditure in the beef and veal sector )
                                                                      — ( In the alternative ) Disregard of the principle of
                                                                          proportionality : the 2 % financial correction was
— Breach of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of                       wrongly applied to budget item 10-13 which finances
     21 April 1970 on the financing of the common                         losses on stock sold . There cannot be losses for EAGGF
     agricultural policy ( 2 ): in accordance with the                    on stock sold as a result of storage ; losses are attributable
     arrangements under Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 3 ) ,              solely to variations in market prices and are in no way
     applicable in 1992 , the Commission applied certain                  attributable to the inadequate supervision and
     conditions laid down as from the second tendering                    management of ONIC, as alleged by the EAGGF .
     procedure in September 1993 by Regulation ( EEC )
     No 2456/93 ( 4 ). Within the framework of Regulation
     ( EEC ) No 859/89 , the French authorities satisfied             (') OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .
     themselves that each undertaking was legally                     (2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 ( 1 ), p. 218 .
     independent when considering their buying-in tenders .           (') OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 , p. 5 .
     The fact that a natural person performs management               (4) OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 , p . 4 .
     duties in a company and executes legal instruments on its
     behalf does not preclude him in law from managing
     other legal persons in the form of companies and
     carrying out on their behalf acts of management and
     decision-taking by virtue of the powers conferred on
     him, without the companies being connected thereby
     with each other .
— ( In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of
     subsidiarity : a correction affecting 2 % of EAGGF total         Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Government of the
     expenditure in connection with public meat storage is            Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the
     disproportionate in relation to the absence of any risk of                            European Communities
     loss to the Community Fund arising from the tendering                                     ( Case C-233 /96 )
     procedure .
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/23 )
 ( As regards expenditure in the cereals sector )
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 — Breach of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 : the French
      authorities followed the Community procedure for                 European Communities on 9 July 1996 by the Government
      accepting cereal offered for intervention . Some remarks        of the Kingdom of Denmark, represented by Peter Biering,
                                                                      Kontorchef, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      made by the Commission concerning the unsatisfactory
                                                                      the Danish Embassy , 4 boulevard Royal .
      nature of the management system relate to requirements
      which are not laid down in the rules in force ( for
      example, entering of stocks in real time in the computer
      system of the intervention agency's head office, putting        The applicant claims that the Court should :
      up signs systematically on storage premises ). Some
      observations made by the Commission following its
      1993 monitoring mission are connected with the                  — declare Commission Decision 96/311 /EC of 10 April
      situation at the end of 1992/93 marketing year which                 1996 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
      was notable for an exceptionally large increase in the               Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of
      quantities put into intervention . In some cases , goods             the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
      were put into store in non-specialized storage premises .            Guidance and Guarantee Fund and in respect of certain
      The French authorities dispute, however, the EAGGF's                 expenditure for 1 993 ( 1 ) void in so far as it provides that
      inference that it was impossible to check the                        the following expenditure incurred by Denmark cannot
      quantities .                                                         be financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section :
 — Disregard of the principle of legal certainty : the                     — Dkr 26 867 909 for the intervention purchase of
      clearance procedure was initiated in the context of                      beef and veal during the 1991 and 1992 financial
      mutual cooperation reflected in the introduction of                      years ,
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 11
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                           References for a preliminary ruling from the
      proceedings .                                                      Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of
                                                                         6 February 1996 in the cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche
                                                                           Telekom AG and Ute Conze v. Deutsche Telekom AG
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/24 )
— Breach of the EC Treaty or of legal rules for its
      implementation : Article 9 ( 2 ), final clause , of Regulation
      ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 2 ) provides that a tenderer in an             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
      invitation to tender concerning the sale of beef or veal           the European Communities by orders of the
      into intervention during the 1991 and 1992 financial               Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Higher Labour Court,
      years could submit only one tender per category in                 Hamburg ) of 6 February 1996 , which were received at the
      response to each invitation to tender. There is, in the            Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the
      Danish Government's view, no basis for assuming that               cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche Telekom AG and Ute Conze
      the definition of 'a tenderer' in Regulation ( EEC )               v. Deutsche Telekom AG on the following questions :
      No 859/89 must be restricted to cover exclusively
      independent legal persons that are not interconnected .            1 . Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the Barber Protocol
      The amendments made to Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89                    No 2 and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of
      by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 ( 3 ) and Regulation                  the European Communities as primary Community law
      ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 (4 ) demonstrate that the purpose of               have priority over the constitutional law ( Article 3 of
      the provision was at all times to limit the number of                  the Grundgesetz ( Basic Law )) and ordinary law
      tenders per tenderer rather than to limit the number of                ( Paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschaftigungsforderungsgesetz
      tenderers . It follows neither from the recitals in the                ( Employment Promotion Law ) and the general principle
      preamble nor from the discussions within the                           of equal treatment in labour law ) in force in Germany,
      Management Committee that tenderers should be                          with the consequence that where the factual
      independent of each other . That requirement first arises              requirements are fulfilled for a claim under Article 119
      in the second subparagraph of Article 11 ( 3 ) of                      of the EC Treaty on the ground of indirect sex
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 ( 5 ). This means that the               discrimination in connection with an occupational
      Danish authorities were not empowered in 1991 and                      old-age pension scheme because of unfavourable
       1 992 to reject tenders from independent legal persons on             treatment of part-time workers, benefits on the basis of
      the ground that they were not independent of another                   constitutional or ordinary rules of national law can also
      tenderer. It is therefore contrary to Community law for                be claimed only under the same restrictive conditions as
      the Commission to argue that the Danish authorities                    apply to a coincident Community law claim under
      were under such an obligation and for it, on the basis of              Article 1 1 9 of the EC Treaty, so that, in divergence from
      that contention, to refuse to allow EAGGF financing of                 the legal assessment otherwise applicable under national
      notified expenditure resulting from a tender effected in               law, even on the basis of grounds of claim under
      accordance with Community law in force .                               national law benefits are owed only for periods of
                                                                             employment after 17 May 1990, subject to the
      In any event, the EAGGF has not incurred a loss in the                 exception for employees who have initiated legal
      present case , and the Commission's straight reduction of              proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim before
      2 % in the expenditure which Denmark notified for                      that date ?
      EAGGF financing therefore amounts to a breach of the
      Treaty or of legal rules for its implementation .                  2 . Does that also apply where , under the concurrent
                                                                             national law basis , there is a claim to equal treatment
— Absence of reasons .                                                       simply because there is objectively unjustified
                                                                             unfavourable treatment because of working part time ,
                                                                             without it being relevant whether there is also indirect
(') OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .                                    sex discrimination on the basis of a numerically
( 2 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989               proportionally greater unfavourable treatment of
      laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention         women workers ?
      measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
      p. 5 ).
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 of 15 May 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( OJ No L 126 , 16 . 5 .
      1990 , p. 31 ).
(4 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 of 1 August 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/ 89 ( OJ No L 204 , 2 . 8 .
      1990 , p. 45 ).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the
(5 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 of 1 September             European Communities against the Federal Republic of
      1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council                                    Germany
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 as regards the general and special                             ( Case C-236/96 )
      intervention measures for beef ( OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 ,
      P - 4 ).                                                                                ( 96/C 269/25 )
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case F-20/13: Action brought on 26 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/48

         Action brought on 26 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-20/13)
   2013/C 114/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation for the delay in establishing his evaluation reports for 2008 and 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the European Commission’s decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s claim of 13 January 2012;

               —

               where necessary, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 20 November 2012 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on 24 July 2012;

               —

               grant the applicant the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at one euro for material loss sustained and at one euro for non-material loss sustained;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-340/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2007 — France Télécom SA v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for services in high-speed internet access — Predatory pricing)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2007 — France Télécom SA v Commission
   (Case T-340/03) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Market for services in high-speed internet access - Predatory pricing)
   (2007/C 69/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: France Télécom SA, formerly Wanadoo Interactive SA (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Brouwer, H. Calvet, M. Pittie, J. Philippe and T. Janssens, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Rating and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2003, concerning a proceeding under Article [82 EC] (Case COMP/38.233 — Wanadoo Interactive) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-307/12 and T-408/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014  — Mayaleh v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Functions of the governor of the Central Bank of Syria — Actions for annulment — Communication of an act imposing restrictive measures — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Buren of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy and family life — Application of restrictions on admission to a national of a Member State — Freedom of movement for European Union nationals)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Mayaleh v Council
   (Joined Cases T-307/12 and T-408/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Functions of the governor of the Central Bank of Syria - Actions for annulment - Communication of an act imposing restrictive measures - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Buren of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy and family life - Application of restrictions on admission to a national of a Member State - Freedom of movement for European Union nationals))
   (2014/C 448/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syri) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and V. Piessevaux, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of: (i) Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9); (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3); (iii) Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); (iv) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1; corrigendum OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27); and (v) Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application in Case T-307/12;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application in Case T-408/13.

               3.

               Orders Mr Adib Mayaleh to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-96/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay against the European Investment Bank

text:
7.8.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/29
2. The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be           Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay
     allocated between the Chambers as follows:                                     against the European Investment Bank
     (a) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be assigned
         in turn, according to the order in which they are                                       (Case T-96/99)
         registered at the Court Registry, to the First Second,
         Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended Compo-                                      (1999/C 226/53)
         sition;
     (b) Cases concerning intellectual property, as referred to                            (Language of the case: French)
         in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
         of First Instance, shall be assigned according to the
         order in which they are registered at the Court Registry,      An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
         to the Second and Fourth Chambers;                             before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay, resident in Luxem-
     (c) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be assigned      bourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
         to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers.        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
         Such assignment is to be effected on the basis of three        Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
         separate rotas, reflecting the order in which the cases
         are registered at the Court Registry:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
         — for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC
              Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,                — annul the decision adopted by the European Investment
                                                                            Bank (‘the EIB’), by memorandum dated 18 February 1999
         — for the cases concerning the implementation of the               drawn up by its President, Sir Brian Unwin, notifying the
              rules of competition applicable to undertakings,              applicant of the continuation for an indefinite period of
                                                                            the decision previously adopted on 27 July 1998 not to
         — for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).                   treat the civil statue of ‘partnerschap’ as equivalent to
                                                                            marriage, together with the consequences which may arise
                                                                            therefrom in relation to the pension scheme and the family
For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of             allowance;
paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning intellectual
property to the Second and Fourth Chamber on the basis of
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
by the assignment of cases to the First, Third and Fifth
Chambers on a pro rata basis.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)
and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended             The applicant, a former member of the staff of the European
Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of             Investment Bank (‘EIB’), contests the refusal by the appointing
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third        authority to take account of the act, registered in the Nether-
time the end of a rota is reached.                                      lands in accordance with Netherlands law, recognising his
                                                                        cohabitation (‘partnerschap’) as a partner for life with another
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from          person, as regards its possible effects on the pension scheme
that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view          and family allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations of
to ensuring an even spread of the workload.                             the EIB.
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not in
Plenary session                                                         conformity with the Conciliation Board’s recommendation of
                                                                        5 November 1998, which stated that the EIB’s Staff Regulations
At its plenary meeting on 6 July 1999, the Court of First               and pension rules should be revised in order to take into
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of                 account, in particular, the changes occurring in the social
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First           environment within the Union, which have been recognised
Instance that where, following the designation of an Advocate           by the enactment of legislation in certain Member States, and
general pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there         the staff regulations of other comparable institutions. The
is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance              Conciliation Board also considered that any change resulting
sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in          from such revision should be applicable to the present case.
accordance with which the President of the Court is to
designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges          In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of          Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 52 and 53 of
the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be               the Staff Pension Scheme Rules, of Article 119 of the Treaty
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be          on European Union and of the Conciliation Board’s decision
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be                    of 5 November 1998, as well as breach of certain general
designated.                                                             principles of law, such as the principle of the protection of
                                                                        legitimate expectations, the principle of equality of treatment
                                                                        as between the various members of the staff of an institution
                                                                        and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
In addition, the applicant considers that the contested decision        The applicants submit that the contested regulation:
is based on reasoning which is irrelevant and erroneous.
                                                                        — infringes essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                            Articles 1(1), 1(2) and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article
                                                                            VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1 and 4.1 of the
                                                                            WTOAD, and in so doing makes a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment of the facts and the law by imposing an
                                                                            anti-dumping duty when it had not correctly and properly
                                                                            determined the product under investigation, and as a result
                                                                            had failed to ensure that the investigation leading to
Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja,                            the contested regulation was supported by a sufficiently
Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie,                          representative proportion of the Community industry
Alpex-Karlino S.A. at Karlino and Zaklady Plyt                              producing the like product. More specifically, the appli-
Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the                     cants state in this respect that hardboard in itself is a too
                        European Union                                      narrow a definition of ’like products’, within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation. As a result, the
                                                                            Community industry producing the like product was
                        (Case T-104/99)                                     incorrectly defined, so that the complainants were not
                                                                            sufficiently representative of Community production of
                                                                            the like product as to constitute a majority of the
                        (1999/C 226/54)                                     industry. The complainants therefore failed to satisfy the
                                                                            requirements of Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
                                                                            Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, Article VI of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                     the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 3(1) of the WTOAD,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  and makes a manifest error of assessment in finding that
Communities on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt                  the Community industry producing the like product under
Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at                 investigation suffered injury. According to the applicants,
Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie,                      the investigation of injury conducted by the Commission
represented by Mr. Vassilios N. Akritidis and Mr Tom Pick,                  concerned only a very small number of complaints, and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                considered hardboard performance only, thus eliminating
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                 from consideration the excellent performances of the thin
                                                                            MDF sector. The Council was not therefore in possession
                                                                            of adequate and reliable indicators from which to draw
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                 any reliable conclusion on injury.
— declare, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
    that the definitive regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No          — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
    194/99) is null and void;                                               Articles 1(1), 3(ó), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation,
                                                                            Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.5, 3.6 and
— order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings               3.7 of the WTOAD, and makes a manifest error of
    be borne by the defendant.                                              assessment in finding that imports of hardboard were the
                                                                            cause of injury to the Community industry producing the
                                                                            like product.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
The applicants in the presents case, private limited companies          is vitiated by infringement of a fundamental procedural
incorporated under the laws of Latvia and Poland respectively,          requirement under Articles 29 and 33(3)(b) of the EU/Latvia
challenge Council Regulation (EC) No 194/99 of 25 January               Europe Agreement, in that it was adopted without due
1999, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             consultation being offered to the Government of Latvia.
hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional
duties imposed (1).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 29.11.1999, p. 16.
Hardboard, the product at issue, is a wood-based panel
product. It forms part of a wider family of several wood-based
panel products which all bear similarities between one another.
Such products are, for example, Medium Density Fibreboard
(MDF), High Density Fibreboard (HDF), chipboard, plywood,
softwood, etc.


title: Case C-653/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/3

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

   (Case C-653/15 P)
   (2016/C 191/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Carsten Bopp (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 7 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided that the appellant must bear his own costs.


title: Case T-382/11: Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Pigui v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/30

         Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Pigui v Commission
   (Case T-382/11)
   2011/C 282/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristina Pigui (Strejnic, Romania) (represented by: M. Alexe, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Oblige the defendant to disclose information as to the identity of any higher education institution involved in the online Master 2008-2010 of the Jean Monnet programme;

               —

               Oblige the defendant to stop the program if no higher education institution is involved, to ask written study contract between students and organizers and to ask for a uniform system of evaluation for all students involved; and

               —

               Oblige the Commission to restore the ab initio situation of the applicant showing that the 2008-2010 programme did not meet the Jean Monnet programme standards, at least in so far as the applicant is concerned.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 265 TFUE, a declaration that the defendant unlawfully failed to act, as it did not disclose the results of the public investigation requested by the applicant.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 6(3) and 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC (1), as it failed to investigate and disclose information as requested by the applicant, as well as Articles 11 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as the defendant infringed the transparency principle and consumer protection laws.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 4 and 5 of Directive 97/7/EC (2) and Articles 2(a)(b) and 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) as it failed to investigate and evaluate the online master of the Jean Monet programme against its objectives in accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 5 of Directive 97/7/EC and Articles 2(a)(b), 6 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC, as it failed to investigate the double standard of students’ evaluation system.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as the applicant did not receive equal treatment in the framework of the online master of the Jean Monnet programme.

      (1)  Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 45)

      (2)  Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19)

      (3)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)


title: Case T-157/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Undertakings — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Exporting country — Scope of the investigation — Sampling — Normal value — Definition of the product concerned — Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim — Temporal application of new provisions — Injury — Causal link)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council
   (Case T-157/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Exporting country - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Normal value - Definition of the product concerned - Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim - Temporal application of new provisions - Injury - Causal link))
   (2017/C 121/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, China) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented initially by A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JingAo Solar Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-278/12 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Articles 20 and 21 — Abolition of border control at internal borders — Checks within the territory — Measures having an equivalent effect to border checks — National legislation authorising checks of identity, nationality and residence status by officials responsible for border surveillance and monitoring of foreign nationals in a 20 kilometre area extending from the common border with other State parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Checks intended to combat illegal residence — Legislation laying down certain conditions and guarantees concerning, inter alia, the frequency and intensity of the checks)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A. Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel
   (Case C-278/12 PPU) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Articles 20 and 21 - Abolition of border control at internal borders - Checks within the territory - Measures having an equivalent effect to border checks - National legislation authorising checks of identity, nationality and residence status by officials responsible for border surveillance and monitoring of foreign nationals in a 20 kilometre area extending from the common border with other State parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Checks intended to combat illegal residence - Legislation laying down certain conditions and guarantees concerning, inter alia, the frequency and intensity of the checks)
   2012/C 355/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Atiqullah Adil

      Defendant: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — Abolition of checks at internal borders — Possibility, for a Member State, to carry out police checks within its territory, in an area between the land border of that State with neighbouring countries and a line 20 km inside that border — Checks linked to establishing compliance with the rules governing residence — Whether such checks may be carried out solely on the basis of general information relating to the unlawful presence of nationals of non-member countries within the control area or whether it is necessary to have specific evidence of the irregularity of the situation of the person who is the subject of the check — Whether rules are permissible which establish certain quantitative criteria relating to the maximum number of checks which may be carried out within a given period

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables officials responsible for border surveillance and the monitoring of foreign nationals to carry out checks, in a geographic area 20 kilometres inside the land border between a Member State and the State parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990, with a view to establishing whether the persons stopped satisfy the requirements for lawful residence applicable in the Member State concerned, when those checks are based on general information and experience regarding the illegal residence of persons at the places where the checks are to be made, when they may also be carried out to a limited extent in order to obtain such general information and experience-based data in that regard, and when the carrying out of those checks is subject to certain limitations concerning, inter alia, their intensity and frequency.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-224/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 26 April 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai
   (Case C-224/13)
   2013/C 207/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of Articles 70, 71 and 72 of the [Italian] Criminal Procedure Code in so far as they require criminal proceedings to be stayed indefinitely and, in addition, regular expert assessments to be carried out in respect of the defendant, once it has been ascertained that that defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve?

               2.

               On a proper construction of Article 6 ECHR and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude the application of point (3) of the first paragraph of Article 159 of the Criminal Code in so far as it requires the limitation period to be prolonged indefinitely (extended on a six-month basis under Article 72 of that Code) in the event that a defendant is incapable of taking part in the proceedings in a state of full awareness, by reason of a medical condition which is irreversible and unlikely to improve?


title: Case C-340/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Lombardia (Sezione Terza) by order of 27 May 2004 in the case Carbotermo SpA against Comune di Busto Arsizio (third party: AGESP s.p.a.)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Lombardia (Sezione Terza) by order of 27 May 2004 in the case Carbotermo SpA against Comune di Busto Arsizio (third party: AGESP s.p.a.)
   (Case C-340/04)
   (2004/C 251/12)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 27 May 2004 of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Lombardia, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carbotermo SpA against Comune di Busto Arsizio (third party: AGESP s.p.a.) on the following questions:

               (1)

               Is the direct award of a contract for the supply of fuel for heating appliances in buildings owned by or within the competence of the Municipality, and relating to operation, supervision and maintenance (the main value of which lies in supply), to a joint stock company whose capital is, at present, held entirely by another joint stock company, of which the awarding Municipality is, for its part, the major shareholder (with 99.98 % of the shares), or to a company (AGESP) in which a direct holding is owned not by the public authority but by another company (AGESP Holding), 99.98 % of whose capital is presently owned by the public administration, compatible with Directive 93/36/EEC (1)?

               (2)

               Must the requirement that the undertaking to which the supply contract is awarded directly carry out the essential part of its activities with the controlling authority be ascertained by applying Article 13 of Directive 93/38/EC (2) and can it be concluded that it has been satisfied where that undertaking derives the majority of its turnover from the controlling public authority or, alternatively, in the territory of that authority?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

      (2)  OJ 1993, L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-164/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/17/EC — Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-164/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/17/EC - Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/39)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-164/04: action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 31 March 2004, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Shotter) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 202/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-382/00 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-238/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/66)                                                          (2002/C 202/68)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 30 May 2002 the President of the Second Chamber              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-238/01:
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-382/00:                  Centre Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
Monsanto Company v Council of the European Union.                        (CESD — Communautaire, A.s.b.l.) v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/01 and
                          T-161/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/67)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/02 (1)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/69)
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber                                (Language of the Case: Spanish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/
01 and T-161/01: Raymond Maxwell and Liam O’Bradaigh                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
v Commission of the European Communities.                                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/02: Guiller-
                                                                         mo Balmori Abella v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001 and C 289 of 13.10.2001.                      ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case T-555/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/63

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-555/15)
   (2015/C 398/77)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 of 15 July 2015 on the 2014 amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee insofar as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive rate of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea(s) in law.

               1.

               Misuse of discretion, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment

                           —

                           Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment.

               3.

               Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration and rights of the defence

                           —

                           Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons.

               4.

               [Breach of] the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to effective legal remedies

                           —

                           Finally, the applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy.


title: Case C-165/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Ecco Sko A/S (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 6403 — Footwear with uppers of leather — Heading 6404 — Footwear with uppers of textile materials)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Ecco Sko A/S
   (Case C-165/07) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 6403 - Footwear with uppers of leather - Heading 6404 - Footwear with uppers of textile materials)
   (2008/C 171/15)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: Ecco Sko A/S
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 (formerly No 2263/2000) of 13 October 2000, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Compatibility of Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature, which was incorporated by Commission Regulation No 3800/92 of 23 December 1992 amending Council Regulation No 2658/87, with Note 4(a) to that same Chapter — Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather — Classification under Combined Nomenclature heading 6403 (footwear with uppers of leather) or under heading 6404 (footwear with uppers of textile materials)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a sandal such as that in question in the main proceedings, with an outer sole of rubber, whose upper is made up of two leather sections glued to the inner sole and linked to each other by leather fastening straps covered with Velcro strips, with the leather making up around 71 % of the upper's external surface area and the elastic textile material underneath the leather remaining exposed in places, falls within:

                           —

                           heading 6404 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, fulfils the purpose of an upper, that is to say, provides sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal;

                           —

                           heading 6403 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, does not fulfil the purpose of an upper, that is to say, does not provide sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal.

               2.

               Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature, inserted by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3800/92 of 23 December 1992 amending Regulation No 2658/87, is compatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-85/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2013 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-85/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)
   2013/C 156/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and by M. Hall, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.