title: Case T-113/06: Action brought on  10 April 2006  — Fjord Seafood Norway and Others v Council

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/47

         Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Fjord Seafood Norway and Others v Council
   (Case T-113/06)
   (2006/C 131/87)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Fjord Seafood Norway AS (Oslo, Norway), Fjord Seafood Scotland Farming Ltd (Isle of Lewis, United Kingdom), Alsaker Fjordbruk AS (Onarheim, Norway) (represented by: J. Juuhl-Langseth and P. Dyrberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation 85/2006 insofar as it relates to Fjord Seafood Norway AS.

               —

               Order the Council to bear the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants either export farmed salmon from Norway to the Community or produce it in the Community. The contested regulation imposes anti-dumping duties on farmed salmon originating in Norway.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit in the first place that the contested regulation defines and applies the notion of Community industry wrongly. The applicants state that the contested regulation defined the Community industry suffering injury in a way that it covered less than 5 % of total Community production, in particular on the grounds that other Community producers are owned by or related to Norwegian interests. They submit that therefore the contested regulation violated the EEA Agreement, in particular the principle of freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, the basic regulation (1), and Article 253.
   The applicants furthermore contest that the contested regulation defined the Community industry as such as to cover only producers of farmed salmon. They submit that the processing industry should also have been included in the definition in as much as the salmon at issue is also processed and the duties imposed take into account processing costs.
   The applicants also submit that the contested regulation wrongly assessed the dumping and injury based on data relating to the 25 Member States of the EU although for most of the time of the investigation period, the EU consisted of 15 Member States. Norwegian exporters market behaviour on the markets of the ten new Member States, who have no farmed salmon industry, prior to 1 May 2004 should not be construed as dumping causing injury to the Community industry.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the samples of complainants and Norwegian exporters used are not representative, that the contested regulation failed to establish the causal link between Norwegian imports and injury and failed to consider whether injury by US and Canadian imports was not attributed to Norwegian imports. It is also submitted that the contested regulation was wrong in automatically identifying lost Community industry market share as injury, that the exchange rates used for the calculation of duties were wrong, that the basis for import prices on fillets is wrong and that the disclosure in that respect was insufficient. Finally, it is submitted that, in relation to the applicant Fjord Seafood Norway, the cost of production was wrongly established.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1)


title: Case T-192/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/25

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council
   (Case T-192/16)
   (2016/C 232/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NF (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;

               —

               order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.


title: Case T-368/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB (Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB — Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Breach of procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/43

         Order of the President of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB
   (Case T-368/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Economic and monetary policy - Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB - Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Breach of procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcimos Consulting SMPC (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Rodolaki, avocat)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decisions of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 28 June and 6 July 2015 concerning the level of emergency liquidity assistance provided to Greek banks.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-380/15: Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court hearing the case — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/4

         Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL
   (Case C-380/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court hearing the case - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2016/C 200/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín

      Defendants: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands, Spain) by decision of 1 July 2015.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Action brought on 29 December 1995 by Fernando Carbajo Ferrero against the European Parliament (Case T-237/95)

text:
17. 2 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 46/ 17
Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Telecom Italia                  — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
Mobile SpA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                        ( Case T-229/95 )                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                           ( 96/C 46/32 )
                                                                      The applicant states that he has since 1 May 1994 been
                                                                      occupying the position of acting Head of Division in the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Parliament's Directorate-General        for Information and
                                                                      Public Relations in Spain . On 9 March 1994 notice of
An action against the Commission of the European                      internal competition No A/88 was published with a view to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     filling that post; that notice of competition followed on from
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                   an initial procedure aimed at filling the post by way of
1995 by Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is at             promotion or transfer, which did not produce any valid
Turin (Italy ), represented by Gustavo Minervini, Antonio             applications . Having sat the competition, the applicant was
Tizzano, Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and                 entered in second place on the list of suitable candidates; he
Stefano D'Ercole and Andrea Guarino, of the Rome Bar,                 was awarded one mark less than the candidate placed first
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             on the list, by reason of the latter's knowledge of a third
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l er .                                 language . After the list was drawn up, the Director-General
                                                                      concerned interviewed the top three successful candidates
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          and proposed that the applicant be appointed . The
                                                                      applicant was informed, by letter of 2 March 1995 from the
— annul Commission Decision 95/489/EC of 4 October                    Secretary-General of the Parliament, that the appointing
    1995 concerning the conditions imposed on the second              authority had decided to appoint the person occupying first
    operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy ( OJ             place on the list.
    1995 L 280, p. 49 ),
                                                                      The applicant relies on seven pleas in opposition to that
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              decision : ( 1 ) infringement of the procedure for filling
                                                                      vacancies, ( 2 ) breach of the principle of good management
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those            and sound administration, ( 3 ) breach of the terms of the
in Case T-215/95 Telecom Italia SpA v. Commission (').                notice of competition, ( 4 ) breach of the duty to provide a
                                                                      statement of reasons, ( 5 ) manifest error of assessment, ( 6 )
(') See page 15 of this Official Journal .                            breach of the principle of non-discrimination and ( 7 ) misuse
                                                                      of powers .
                                                                      The applicant maintains, first, that the decision was taken in
                                                                      contravention of the proposal made by the Director-General
                                                                      concerned . The practice generally and consistently followed
Action brought on 29 December 1995 by Fernando Carbajo                is that the appointing authority follows the
          Ferrero against the European Parliament                     Director-General's proposal and may only depart from it if
                        ( Case T-237/95 )                             it gives special reasons for so doing. The appointing
                                                                      authority gave no indication of the merits, qualifications
                           ( 96/C 46/33 )
                                                                      and/or experience of the successful candidate which it
                                                                      regarded as greater than those offered by the applicant; nor
                (Language of the case: French)                        did it state any of the factors which led it to depart from the
                                                                      proposal . Consequently, the procedure for filling vacancies
An action against the European Parliament was brought                 and the general duty to provide a statement of reasons, as
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    laid down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of officials,
Communities on 29 December 1995 by Fernando Carbajo                   were contravened .
Ferrero, residing in Madrid ( Spain ), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar, with an            He further considers that although the notice of competition
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                   did not lay down any conditions as to the candidates'
Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.                                     qualifications and professional experience, the description
                                                                      of the nature of the duties involved and the principle of good
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          management and sound administration were and are such
                                                                      that the selection board was not validly in a position, first, to
— annul the decision of the European Parliament,                      admit to the tests in the competition a candidate lacking any
    contained in the letter of 2 March 1995 from the                  experience with regard to the post to be filled — as in the
    Secretary-General, Mr Vinci , not to appoint the                  case of the candidate who was ultimately appointed —, nor,
    applicant to the post of Head of Division in the Madrid           a fortiori, to enter his or her name in first place on the list of
    Information Office,                                               successfull candidates . The applicant further states that the
                                                                      omission of any condition as to qualifications and
— annul the decision of the European Parliament                       professional experience — despite the fact that such
     appointing another candidate to that post,                       conditions had appeared in the notice of vacancy preceding
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/ 18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17 . 2 . 96
the notice of competition and are habitually contained in all          Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
notices of vacancy or competition — was intended to enable             from the register of Cases T-159/93 : Heinrich Kroger v.
a certain candidate, selected in advance by the appointing             Commission of the European Communities, T- 160/93 : Paul
authority, to take part in the competition and to be                   Hay v. Commission of the European Communities,
appointed; the applicant concludes from this that the                  T-162/93 : Hugo Bumann v. Commission of the European
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                  Communities, T-171 /93 : Hermann Weiland v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities, T-179/93 : Heidrun
He also observes that he was awarded < > ne mark less than the
                                                                       Bormann v. Commission of the European Communities,
candidate placed first on the list, by reason of the latter's          T-201 /93 : Jürn-Wulf Hoper v. Commission of the European
knowledge of a third language, although knowledge of third             Communities, T-202/93 : Fritz Voß v. Commission of the
and fourth languages was not included in the notice of                 European Communities, T-217/93 : Kurt Fröhlich jun . v.
competition amongst the conditions to be fulfilled by the              Commission of the European Communities and T-225/93 :
candidates . Consequently, by assessing the candidates                 Eberhard Kloth v. Commission of the European
according to their knowledge of third and fourth languages,            Communities .
the selection board infringed the terms of the notice of
competition.                                                           í 1 ) OJ No C 161 , 27 . 6 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
The applicant states, moreover, that he manifestly possesses
greater qualifications, experience and competence as
regards the post to be filled than the candidate who was
ultimately appointed . He considers , therefore, that, in giving
preference to the latter's application for the post in question,
the appointing authority committed a manifest error of                 Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of
assessment .
                                                                                Judges to Chambers
                                                                                96/C 46/36
 Lastly, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of
 non-discrimination, contending that one of the members of             At its plenary conference on 11 January 1996 the Court
 the selection board had formerly been his direct hierarchical         of First Instance adopted the following decisions in
 superior and that he had had problems with him in the past;           consequence of the departure from office of Judge
 he considers that, in those circumstances, that member of             Barrington, President of Chamber, and the taking-up of
 the selection board was not able to view him objectively and           office by Judge Cooke .
 impartially, and that that attitude could have influenced the
 judgment of the other members of the selection board.                 Judge Lenaerts is designated President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber and of the Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                        Composition, and Judge Cooke is assigned to the Third
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition, the Fourth Chamber and
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, for the period
       Removal from the register of Case T- 103/93 ( )                  from 11 January 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
                             ( 96/C 46/34 )
                                                                        Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on
                (Language of the case: German)                          19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 , 19 . 10 . 1995 , p. 11 ) is
                                                                        altered as follows .
 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
 Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
 Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        Mr Briët, President of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf, Ms Lindh,
 from the register of Case T-103/93 : Jan Dietrich Arfmann v.
  Commission of the European Communities .                              Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges .
                                                                        Fourth Chamber:
  (') OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 .
                                                                        Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and
                                                                        Mr Cooke, Judges.
                                                                         Fourth Chamber, Extented Composition:
  Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-159/93 and                 Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                                others (M                                Ms Lindh, Mr Azizi and Mr Cooke, Judges.
                               96/C 46/35 )
                                                                         For cases in which the written procedure was completed and
                 (Language of the case: German)                          a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
                                                                         11 January 1996, the Third Chamber, Extended
  By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First                Composition, shall continue to sit with the same
  Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 composition as before .


title: Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Giuseppe Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-113/95)

text:
?.. 9 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 229/ 19
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Giuseppe Mancini
                        of 29 June 1995                                 against the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori                                       ( Case T-l 13/95 )
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Others v . Commission of                                   ( 95/C 229/45
                the European Communities (*)
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine                               (Language of the case: Italian)
— Compulsory distillation scheme — Admissibility —
     Regulation of individual concern to the applicant)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                           ( 95/C 229/44 )                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the Ispra division of the
                                                                      Joint Research Centre, residing at Varese ( Italy ),
                                                                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, who has a right of
In Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori
                                                                      audience before the Corte di Cassazione della Repubblica
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto, Cantina Cooperativa fra
                                                                      Italiana , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Produttori Vitivinicoli di Quarto d'Altino, Gruppo Pro. Ri .          Chambers of Ernest Arendt.
Ve . Impresa Cooperativa produttori Riuniti Veneti Srl,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Verona Srl ,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali del Vicentino Srl , Cantine Sociali         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Mandamentali di Dolo, Cantina Cooperativa Produttori di
Valdobbiadene, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Campo di                — declare unlawful the removal of Mr Mancini from his
Pietra, Cantina Sociale cooperativa Ponte di Piave, Cantina               post as CEO Project Manager,
Sociale di Ormelle, SpA, Cantina Sociale Cona e Cavarzere
Srl, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Gaiarine, Cantina                 — annul the measure effectively adopted and order the
Sociale Cooperativa Basso Piave a RL, Cantina Sociale di                   Commission to reinstate the applicant in his former
Conegliano SC a RL, Consorzio tra le Cantine Sociali del                  post,
Padovano — Patavini , Cantina prà Maggiore Srl , Cantina
Sociale di Premaore di Camponogara — Cooperativa,                     — award the applicant ECU 10 000 — a sum notified to the
Cantina Sociale di Noale — Cooperativa , Consorzio 'La                     Commission during the administrative procedure — by
Marca' Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Treviso,                        way of compensation for non-material damage ,
Cooperativa Agricola La Salute — Ponte di Piave, Cantina
Sociale Cooperativa di Caposile Srl, Consorzio Agrario                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Interprovinciale TV.BL, Aldo Zanella, Sergio Miotto,
Giovanni Paladin, Franceso Busolin, Luigi Bonotto,
Lamberto Belussi , Giuseppe Busolin, Leonato Nardin,                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Vittorio Meneghello, Alfio Paladin, Galileo Zaninotto,
Giorgio Cecchetto, Antonio Facchin, Silvio Facchin, Enzo              Since 1992 the applicant has held the post of Project
Lorenzon, Carillo Rinaldin, Dino Lorenzon, Primo Toffoli ,            Manager of the CEO ( Centre for Earth Observation )
Renzo Bergamo, Luigi Carraro and Tiziano di Stefani,                  project, reporting to the Director of the ISEI ( Institute for
represented by Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar ( Italy ),      Systems Engineering and Informatics ) of the Joint Research
                                                                      Centre . On 21 March 1994 the Director of the ISEI notified
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the              the applicant orally of the decision removing him from his
European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and                  post by reasons to do with political insensitivity but not
Alberto Dal Ferro ), supported by the Council of the                  more closely specified . The applicant immediately
European Union ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Diego                  submitted a request on 24 March 1994, lodged in
Canga Fano ) — application for the annulment of a number              accordance with Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations,
of Community provisions on compulsory distillation in the             asking that the decision be confirmed in a formal act
wine sector — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber,             specifying the charges against him. Since that request met
Extended Composition ) composed of J. Biancarelli,                    with no response, the applicant submitted a complaint in
President, C. P. Briët, C. B. Bellamy, P. Lindh and J. Azizi ,        accordance with Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 ,           which was in turn followed by a long silence on the part of
                                                                      the administration .
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       On 28 April 1995 the applicant received a reply to his
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    complaint, in which the Commission acknowledged that the
                                                                      decision removing him from his post was only
2 . the applicants are ordered to pay the costs;                      communicated orally and that, by way of a statement of the
                                                                       reasons for that decision, he had been criticized — again,
 3.   the Council shall bear its own costs .                           orally — for being excessively authoritarian in the
                                                                       performance of his duties .
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that his removal from the post of CEO
                                                                       Project Manager is unlawful and unjust on the following
                                                                       grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
— Dual infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25                 from the effective date of dissolution of the relationship
    of the Staff Regulations: The second paragraph of                      until reinstatement, together with allowance for
    Article 25 of the Staff Regulations provides that any                  inflation and interest, and together also with
    decision relating to a specific individual must be                    compensation for psychological, non-material and
    communicated in writing to the official concerned and                 material damage ( which the applicant reserves the right
    that any decision adversely affecting an official must                to quantify in the course of the action ), together with
    state the grounds on which it is based. The facts, which               interest to be assessed in such manner as may be just;
    are indisputable and which the Commission itself
    accepts, disclose a dual infringement of that provision :
    the decision was not the subject of a formal act                 — order the European Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay
                                                                           the costs .
    communicated in writing and still less of a reasoned
    administrative act .
— Manifest injustice : Although the appointing authority             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    has a broad discretion as regards the assignment of
     officials to particular duties or the revocation of such        The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff
     assignments, that discretion is nevertheless limited by         of the Group of the European Liberal Democratic and
    the duty to have regard to the interests of the service, to      Reformist Party, challenges the decision of the European
     accommodate as far as possible the interests of the             Parliament to terminate his indefinite contract, which was
     official and to comply with the relevant legal provisions       taken following a decision of the Bureau of the ELDR
     and principles . In the present case, the applicant was         Group, which gave as its reason that group's results in the
     praised and received expressions of appreciation, in            elections of June 1994 .
     flattering terms, during the years in which he performed
     the duties of CEO Project Manager; in those
     circumstances, the conduct of his superiors is at the very      According to the letter communicating the contested
     least inconsistent. The applicant further points out that       decision to the applicant, his dismissal was the result of the
     he was not assigned to another post, but simply left            reduction in the number of ELDR members after the
     without any clearly defined duties . From any point of          elections . In addition, as the internal composition of the
     view, the removal of the applicant from his post is both        group had changed, it had been found necessary to
     manifestly unjust and ill-founded.                              restructure its secretariat 'on a geographical basis'.
                                                                     The applicant points first to the absence of any reasons given
                                                                     in the contested decision .
                                                                     He also alleges disregard of the internal prior reconciliation
Action brought on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale                  procedure provided for in Article 11 of the Recruitment
                against the European Parliament                       Rules of the Bureau of the Parliament, which applies to 'any
                        ( Case T-123/95 )                             procedure for the termination of the contract of a member of
                          ( 95/C 229/46 )                             the temporary staff . Under that procedure, the Parliament
                                                                      is obliged to give the Staff Committee advance notice of the
                                                                      forthcoming dismissal of the applicant, in order to place the
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      committee in a position to hear his views and make
                                                                      approaches to the relevant appointing authority.
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision is
Communities on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale, a                   vitiated for manifest error and misuse of powers, since the
former member of the temporary staff of the European                  geographical reason is invalid . Even if the ELDR Group did
Parliament, resident at Messina ( Italy ), represented by             have one member less than before the 1994 elections, the
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio,           number of Italian members nevertheless rose from three to
 of the Bar of Reggio di Calabria, with an address for service        seven. After the elections, France, with only one member in
 in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue              the ELDR Group, had four staff members; Germany, with
 Glesener .                                                           no member in the group, had two staff members; whilst
                                                                      Italy, which went from three members of the group to seven,
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          had its staff participation reduced by one-third, with three
                                                                       staff members cut to two .
 — declare unlawful the termination of the indefinite
      temporary contract between the applicant and the                 It therefore follows that, far from equilibrium having been
      European Parliament ( Group of the European Liberal              restored, a disequilibrium has been created .
      Democratic and Reformist Party ( the ELDR Group ));
      consequently annul such termination, ordering the
      reinstatement of the applicant; order the European
      Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay all salary and benefits


title: Case C-549/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Promotion of energy from renewable sources — Biofuels for transport — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 18(1) — ‘Mass balance’ system to ensure that biogas meets the prescribed sustainability criteria — Validity — Articles 34 and 114 TFEU — National rules requiring the mass balance to be achieved within a location with a clear boundary — Practice of the competent national authority to accept that that condition may be satisfied where sustainable biogas is transported using the national gas network — Order of that authority stating that that condition cannot be satisfied where sustainable biogas is imported from other Member States via interconnected national gas networks — Free movement of goods)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet
   (Case C-549/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Promotion of energy from renewable sources - Biofuels for transport - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 18(1) - ‘Mass balance’ system to ensure that biogas meets the prescribed sustainability criteria - Validity - Articles 34 and 114 TFEU - National rules requiring the mass balance to be achieved within a location with a clear boundary - Practice of the competent national authority to accept that that condition may be satisfied where sustainable biogas is transported using the national gas network - Order of that authority stating that that condition cannot be satisfied where sustainable biogas is imported from other Member States via interconnected national gas networks - Free movement of goods))
   (2017/C 277/06)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

      Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to place an obligation on the Member States to authorise imports, via their interconnected national gas networks, of biogas satisfying the sustainability criteria set out in Article 17 of that directive and intended for use as biofuel;

               2.

               Examination of the second question has not disclosed any factor such as to affect the validity of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28;

               3.

               Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding an order, such as the order at issue in the main proceedings, by which a national authority seeks to exclude the possibility that an economic operator may implement a mass balance system, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28, in respect of sustainable biogas transported in interconnected national gas networks, by virtue of a provision adopted by that authority under which such a mass balance must be achieved ‘within a location with a clear boundary’, when that authority accepts, on the basis of that provision, that a mass balance system may be implemented in respect of sustainable biogas transported within the national gas network of the Member State of that authority.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case T-525/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/46

         Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
   (Case T-525/15) (1)

   (2016/C 191/64)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case C-149/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission (Appeal — Plant-protection products — Diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Procedure for the assessment of active substances — Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex — Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/30

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission
   (Case C-149/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Plant-protection products - Diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Procedure for the assessment of active substances - Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex - Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)
   2013/C 225/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and N. Knight, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 in Case T-71/10 Xeda International and Pace International LLC v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2009)9262) (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-616/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services — Article 4.23 — Concept of payment instrument — Ordering transfers through online banking and by paper transfer order — Article 52(3) — Right of the payee to request from the payer charges for the use of a payment instrument — Power of Member States to lay down a general prohibition — Contract between a mobile phone operator and individuals)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
   (Case C-616/11) (1)

   ((Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services - Article 4.23 - Concept of payment instrument - Ordering transfers through online banking and by paper transfer order - Article 52(3) - Right of the payee to request from the payer charges for the use of a payment instrument - Power of Member States to lay down a general prohibition - Contract between a mobile phone operator and individuals))
   2014/C 175/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

      Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4.23 and Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1) — Scope — Concept of ‘payment instrument’ — Provisions of national law which lay down a general prohibition of the imposition of handling charges in respect of the use of a payment instrument — Contract between a mobile phone operator and an individual — Payment by way of signed cash payment form, by transfer of cash payment form, or by transfer through online banking

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as being applicable to the use of a payment instrument in the course of the contractual relationship between a mobile phone operator, as payee, and that operator’s customer, as payer.

               2)

               Article 4.23 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that both the procedure for ordering transfers by means of a transfer order form signed by the payer in person and the procedure for ordering transfers through online banking constitute payment instruments within the meaning of that provision.

               3)

               Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that it gives Member States the power to prohibit generally payees from levying charges on the payer for the use of any payment instrument, if the national legislation, as a whole, takes into account the need to encourage competition and the use of efficient payment instruments, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-279/15 to T-282/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads and Others) (Community design — Community design representing tyre treads and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels — Failure to apply for renewal of the design and cancellation of the design upon expiry of the registration — Application for restitutio in integrum and application for renewal of the design)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads and Others)
   (Joined Cases T-279/15 to T-282/15) (1)

   ((Community design - Community design representing tyre treads and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels - Failure to apply for renewal of the design and cancellation of the design upon expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum and application for renewal of the design))
   (2016/C 136/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Four actions brought against the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 (Cases R 1285/2014-3 and R 1286/2014-3) and of 11 February 2015 (Cases R 1287/2014-3 and R 1288/2014-3) relating to applications for retitutio in integrum.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Case C-496/99 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 14 October 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97 in so far as it relates to Case T-191/96 between C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA, established in Borgonovo, Castagnaro di Verona, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
Appeal brought on 21 December 1999 by the Com-                        being that the Court of First Instance asserted that the
mission of the European Communities against the judg-                 Commission may not alter the terms of payment, and yet at
ment delivered on 14 October 1999 by the Second                       the same time stated that the Commission ought to have
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                issued a new invitation to tender, which would have meant
Communities in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97 in                  changing the terms of payment of the successful tenderers
so far as it relates to Case T-191/96 between C.A.S. Succhi           which had already fulfilled their contractual obligations).
di Frutta SpA, established in Borgonovo, Castagnaro di
Verona, and the Commission of the European Communi-                   The third ground of challenge is that the Court of First Instance
                               ties                                   misinterpreted Community law relating to the concept of
                                                                      individual concern when it held that C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta
                        (Case C-496/99 P)                             SpA was individually concerned by the contested decision.
                                                                      The fourth plea is that the Court of First Instance misinter-
                          (2000/C 79/15)
                                                                      preted the concept of an interest in bringing proceedings and
                                                                      in particular the scope of Article 176 of the Treaty (now
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 October 1999           Article 233 EC) and consequently found that C.A.S. Succhi di
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of               Frutta had such an interest.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-191/96 and
T-106/97 in so far as it relates to Case T-191/96 between             The fifth plea concerns misinterpretation of the rules relating
C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA and the Commission of the                 to the withdrawal of fruit provided for by the common
European Communities was brought before the Court of                  organisation of the markets in the fruit and vegetable sector
Justice of the European Communities on 21 December 1999               which led the Court of First Instance to treat as available fruit
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented            withdrawn on dates prior to that on which payment was
by Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as     possible.
Agent, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro of the Vicenza Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          (1) Judgment of 14 October 1999 in Joined Cases T-191/96 and
                                                                          T-196/97.
                                                                      (2) C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the judgment under appeal and declare the
    application brought by C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA in Case
    T-191/96 (1) inadmissible;
— in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal on
                                                                      Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
    substantive grounds and declare the application brought by
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA in Case T-191/96 unfounded;
                                                                                Spain
— in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under
                                                                                (Case C-499/99)
    appeal and remit the case to the Court of First Instance so
    that it may give a ruling on the merits in the light of such
    information as the Court may wish to provide;                                                (2000/C 79/16)
— order the applicant (2) to pay the costs of the present             An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
    proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance relating     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    to Case T-191/96.                                                 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Gérard Rozet et Ramón Vidal
                                                                      Puig, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                      bourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The first and second pleas are that the Court of First Instance       The applicant claims that the Court should:
erred in law when it applied the principle of equal treatment
between tenderers with reference to the differing positions of        — Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
the unsuccessful and the successful tenderers after the award              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
of the contract. The incorrect application of that principle               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
invalidates the judgment as regards both admissibility (the first          mission Decision of 20 December 1989 (91/1/EEC) (1) and
plea being that the situation of C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta                   of 14 October 1998 declaring certain aid to undertakings
SpA does not distinguish it from any other third parties;                  belonging to the Magefesa group to have been granted
consequently, it does not as such have standing to challenge               unlawfully and to be incompatible with the common
the decision on equivalence) and substance (the second plea                market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its


title: Case C-360/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2015 — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort; other party: X BV

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 July 2015 — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort; other party: X BV
   (Case C-360/15)
   (2015/C 346/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort

      Other party to the proceedings: X BV

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 2(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to the levying of charges (‘leges’) by an authority of a Member State in respect of the processing of an application for consent with regard to the timing, location and manner of performance of excavation works associated with the installation of cables for a public electronic communications network?

               (2)

               Must Chapter III of Directive 2006/123/EC … be interpreted as meaning that it also applies in purely internal situations?

               (3)

               Must Directive 2006/123/EC…, against the background of recital 9 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to national rules which require the intention to carry out excavation work in connection with the installation, maintenance and removal of cables for a public electronic telecommunications network to be notified to the municipal council, and on the basis of which the latter is not competent to prohibit that work but is, however, competent to impose conditions in respect of the location, timing and manner of performance of the work and of the promotion of shared use of facilities and the coordination of the work with the managers of other construction works on the land?

               (4)

               Must Article 4(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC … be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to a consent decision with regard to the location, timing and manner of performance of excavation work in connection with the installation of cables for a public electronic telecommunications network, without the relevant authority of a Member State being competent to prohibit that work as such?

               (5)

                           (A)

                           If, given the answers to the foregoing questions, Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC … is applicable in the present case, does that provision have direct effect?

                           (B)

                           If the answer to Question 5(A) is in the affirmative, does Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC … mean that the costs which may be charged may be calculated on the basis of the estimated costs for all application procedures, or on the basis of the costs of all applications such as the one at issue here, or on the basis of individual applications?

                           (C)

                           If the answer to Question 5(A) is in the affirmative, according to which criteria must indirect and fixed costs be allocated to authorisation applications in accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC …?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Case T-597/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/21

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-597/14)
   2014/C 372/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet D’Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000.

               —

               order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on 3 pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on Case T-592/14, Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case C-114/06: Action brought on  27 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Slovak Republic

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/8

         Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Slovak Republic
   (Case C-114/06)
   (2006/C 96/14)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   An action against the Slovak Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Zavvos and Tomáš Kukal, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1), or alternatively by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for adopting measures to transpose the directive expired on 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 235 of 17. 9. 1996, p. 6.


title: Case T-82/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-82/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/105)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-159/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce, Università del Salento v Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Study and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of hospital structures — Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university — Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator — Contract for pecuniary interest — Consideration not exceeding the costs incurred)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce, Università del Salento v Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others
   (Case C-159/11) (1)

   (Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Study and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of hospital structures - Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university - Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator - Contract for pecuniary interest - Consideration not exceeding the costs incurred)
   2013/C 46/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce, Università del Salento

      Defendants: Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, the Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri, the Associazione delle Organizzazioni di Ingegneri, di Architettura e di Consultazione Tecnico Economica (OICE), Etacons srl, Ing. Vito Prato Engineering srl, Barletti — Del Grosso e Associati srl, Ordine degli Architetti della Provincia di Lecce, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of, and Annex II, categories 8 and 12, to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Contract attributed outside a procedure for awarding public works contracts — Provision of a service consisting in the conducting of a study and evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of certain hospitals — Contracts concluded between two public administrative authorities, the party providing the services being a university — Contracts for consideration, in which the consideration does not exceed the costs incurred

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union public procurement law precludes national legislation which authorises the conclusion, without an invitation to tender, of a contract by which public entities establish cooperation among each other where — this being for the referring court to establish — the purpose of such a contract is not to ensure that a public task that those entities all have to perform is carried out, where that contract is not governed solely by considerations and requirements relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest or where it is such as to place a private provider of services in a position of advantage vis-à-vis his competitors.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-264/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Procedure for designation of orphan medicinal products — Application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product — Obligation to submit the application for designation before the application for marketing authorisation is made — Decision of EMA on the validity of the application)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMA
      (Case T-264/07) (1)

      (Medicinal products for human use - Procedure for designation of orphan medicinal products - Application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product - Obligation to submit the application for designation before the application for marketing authorisation is made - Decision of EMA on the validity of the application)
      (2010/C 288/59)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: CSL Behring GmbH (Marburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Koenig, Professor, and F. Leinen, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, Agents) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), (represented by V. Salvatore, Agent, T. Eicke, Barrister and C. Sherliker, Solicitor

         Intervener in support of the defendant European Commission: European Parliament (represented by E. Waldherr and I. Anagnostopoulou, Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision of 24 May 2007 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) declaring invalid the applicant’s application for designation of human fibrinogen as an orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CSL Behring GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and of the European Medicines Agency (EMA);

                  3.

                  Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case F-55/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v European Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/23

         Action brought on 22 May 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-55/12)
   2012/C 200/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposals for transfer of pension entitlements before the entry into service at the Commission, on the calculation basis which takes into account the new general implementing provisions which entered into effect after the applicants’ applications for transfer.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision containing the proposals for transfer of the applicants’ pension entitlements in the context of their application under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which contains a proposal calculated on the basis of the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 February 1995 in Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional): criminal proceedings against Aldo Bordessa and against Vicente Marí Mellado, Concepción Barbero Maestre (Council Directive 88/361/EEC - National authorization for the transfer of money in the form of banknotes)

text:
 No C 87/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   8 . 4 . 95
 Economic Community and the Republic of Austria and                   obligations under the EEC Treaty and in particular under
 adopting provisions for their implementation (2), in                 Commission Decision 90/224/EEC of 24 May 1989 on aid
 particular Protocol 3 annexed thereto concerning the                 granted by the Italian Government to Aluminia and Comsal,
 definition of the concept of 'originating products' and              two State-owned undertakings in the aluminium
 methods of administrative cooperation — the Court (Fifth             industry (2) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of
 Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the                   F.A. Schockweiler (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
 Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and D.A.O. Edward                  G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.L. Murray and G. Hirsch,
 ( Rapporteur), Judges; C.O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a                gave a judgment on 23 February 1995, in which it:
judgment on 23 February 1995, the operative part of which
 is as follows:
                                                                      1 . declares that by not ordering the recovery of aid
                                                                             improperly paid in 1987 to the Aluminia undertaking
It is permissible to dispense with production of the                         and the Comsal undertaking, part of the EFIM group,
 documents mentioned in Title II of Protocol 3 to the                        the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
EEC-Austria Agreement in the version contained in Council                    obligations under the EEC Treaty and in particular
Regulation (EEC) No 1598/88 of 24 May 1988 on the                            under Commission Decision 90/224/EEC of 24 May
application of Decision No 1 /88 of the EEC-Austria Joint                    1989 on aid granted by the Italian Government to
 Committee amending Protocol 3 concerning the definition                     Aluminia and Comsal, two State-owned undertakings in
of the concept of 'originating products ' and methods of                     the aluminium industry;
administrative cooperation, where the origin ofthe goods in
issue has been established beyond doubt on the basis of
objective evidence which could not have been manipulated              2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
or falsified by those involved, where both the importer and
the exporter concerned took the steps necessary to obtain             i 1 ) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .
the documents referred to in the Protocol, and where it was           (2) OJ No L 118, 9. 5 . 1990, p. 42.
for reasons beyond their control, such as anticompetitive
conduct by other persons concerned contrary both to the
objective and the terms of the Agreement, that it was
impossible for them to produce those documents.
0 ) OJ No C 215, 10 . 8 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 300 , 31 . 12 . 1972, p. 1 .                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 23 February 1995
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
                                                                     la Audiencia Nacional): criminal proceedings against Aldo
                                                                     Bordessa and against Vicente Mari Mellado, Concepción
                                                                                Barbero Maestre l 1 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (Council Directive 88/361/EEC — National authorization
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                   for the transfer of money in the form of banknotes)
                     of 23 February 1995                                                          ( 95/C 87/04 )
in    Case   C-349/93 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (*)                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
(State aid — Commission decision ordering recovery ofaid
                      — Non-compliance)
                                                                     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                            ( 95/C 87/03 )
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      In Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 : references to the
                                                                     Court under Article 1 77 of the EEC Treaty from the Juzgado
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional (National High
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Court) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                     pending before that court against Aldo Bordessa ( Case
                                                                     C-358/93 ) and Vicente Man Mellado, Conception Barbero
In Case C-349/93 : Commission of the European                        Maestre ( Case C-416/93 ) — on the interpretation of
Communities (Agents: Antonino Abate and Vittorio Di                  Articles 30 and 59 of the EEC Treaty, and Articles 1 and 4 of
Bucci ) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Luigi Ferrari Bravo) —           Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the
application for a declaration that by not ordering the               implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) — the Court,
repayment of aid improperly paid in 1987 to the Aluminia             composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.A.
undertaking and the Comsal undertaking, part of the EFIM             Schockweiler and P.J.G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), (Presidents
group, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its            of Chambers ), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho
 ---pagebreak---  8 . 4 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/3
de Almeida and J.L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro,                      products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (2) —
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                     the Court, composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                 Chamber, C.N. Kakouris (Rapporteur) and J.L. Murray,
23 February 1995 , in which it rules:                                Judge; Advocate-General; C.O. Lenz, Registrar, R. Grass,
                                                                     gave a judgment on 23 February 1995 , whose operative part
                                                                     is as follows :
1 . rules which make the export of coins, banknotes or
      bearer cheques conditional upon a prior declaration or
      an    administrative   authorization   and      make      that Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on
      requirement subject to criminal penalties do not fall          the fixing ofmaximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
      within the scope of Articles 30 and 59 of the Treaty;          certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
                                                                     vegetables, does not preclude national legislation from
                                                                     setting maximum permissible levels for residues of
2. Articles 1 and 4 of Council Directive 88/361 /EEC of
                                                                     chlorpropham and propham on potatoes and providing for
      24 June 1 988 for the implementation ofArticle 67 ofthe        procedures for checking compliance with those levels,
      Treaty preclude the export ofcoins, banknotes or bearer        subject to the provisions of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
      cheques being made conditional on prior authorization          Treaty.
      but do not by contrast preclude a transaction of that
      nature being made conditional on a prior declaration;
                                                                     ( x ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                     (2 ) OJ No L 350, 14 . 12 . 1990, p . 71 .
3 . Article 1 in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
      88/361 /EEC may be relied on before national courts and
      render inapplicable national rules which conflict with
      those provisions.
(!) OJ No C 235 , 31 . 8 . 1993 . OJ No C 298 , 4 . 11 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 March 1995
                                                                     in Case C-68/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                     House of Lords ): Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc.,
                                                                     Chequepoint SARL, Chequepoint International Ltd v.
                                                                                Presse Alliance SA (*)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (3) — Place where the
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                       harmful event occurred — Libel by a newspaper article)
                      of 23 February 1995                                                         ( 95/C 87/06 )
in Joined Cases C-54/94 and C-74/94 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale,
Macerata: criminal proceedings against Ulderico                                      (Language of the case: English)
              Cacchiarelli and Gino Stanghellini i 1 )
(Council Directives 76/895/EEC and 90/642/EEC —
                                                                     In Case C-68/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
Maximum permissible levels ofpesticide residues on or in
                             potatoes)                               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
                            95/C 87/05 )                             and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                     Matters by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     the proceedings pending before that court between Fiona
                                                                     Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc ., Chequepoint SARL,
                                                                     Chequepoint International Ltd and Presse Alliance SA — on
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         the interpretation of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the abovementioned
           published in the European Court Reports)                  Convention of 27 September 1968 (2 ) as amended by the
                                                                     Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
                                                                     Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
In Joined Cases C-54/94 and C-74/94: references to the               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (3 ) and by the
Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the                     Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
investigating judge of the Pretura Circondariale (District           Hellenic Republic (4) — the Court, composed of G.C.
Magistrate's Court), Macerata, Italy, for a preliminary              Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.A. Schockweiler
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against         ( Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann (Presidents
Gino Stanghellini ( Case C-54/94 ) and Ulderico Cacchiarelli         of Chambers ), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho
( Case C-74/94 ) on the interpretation of Council Directive          de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of                      and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. Darmon, subsequently P. Leger,
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain              Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the


title: Case C-486/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
   (Case C-486/13)
   2013/C 352/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixabank SA

      Defendant: Antonio Galán Rodríguez

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case F-81/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Labiri v Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — 2013 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Labiri v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-81/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits))
   (2015/C 406/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassilliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis, D. de Abreu Caldas and R. Metz, lawyers, then J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Committee of the Regions (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, Agents, and, initially, B. Cambier and G. Ladrière, lawyers, then B. Cambier and T. Cambier, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 13) in the Committee of the Regions (CoR) 2013 promotion procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Ms Labiri is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Committee of the Regions.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 32.