title: Case T-720/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Rotenberg v Council

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/37

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Rotenberg v Council
   (Case T-720/14)
   (2015/C 007/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, S. Hey and H. Brunskill, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014, in so far as those measures apply to him;

               —

               order that the Council pays his costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached data protection principles.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to protection of property, business and reputation.


title: Case T-464/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/53

         Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)
   (Case T-464/08)
   (2008/C 313/95)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Zeta Europe BV (Het Ambacht, Netherlands) (represented by V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 in Case R 666/2008-1 concerning the applicant;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Superleggera’ (Community trade mark application No 5.456.207) for goods in Classes 12, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration, having noted that the mark in question consists of the adjective ‘superleggera’ and that that will therefore be understood as a descriptive indication of the weight of goods.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-485/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Knopf (o-live)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/57

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Knopf (o-live)
   (Case T-485/07)
   (2008/C 51/104)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reinhard Knopf (Malsch, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the decision dated 26 September 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM dismissing the appeal against the granting of Community trade mark No 3 219 193 does not comply with EC Regulation 40/94 on Community trade marks;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the defendant and, if appropriate, by the contributing party.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Reinhard Knopf

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘o-live’ for goods in classes 29, 30, 31 and 33 — application No 3 219 193

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The national trade name ‘Olive lines’ for the activities of a business dedicated to being a trade intermediary

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as there is a risk of confusion between the earlier non-registered trade mark, which has more than just a local significance, and the trade mark applied for.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 1995 in Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Competition - Net price system for books - Rejection of an application for exemption under Article 85 (3) - Indispensability of restrictions on competition)

text:
4 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/3
Fifth Chamber                                                      Messrs Norton Rose, Kempson House, PO Box 570,
                                                                   Camomile Street, London EC3A 7AN — the Court (Fifth
(President: Mr Gulmann)                                            Chamber), composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias
                                                                   (Rapporteur), President of the Court acting as President of
Mr Joliet,                                                         the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and D. A. O.
Mr Edward,                                                         Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Mr Jann,                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Mr Sevón,                                                          17 January 1995 , in which it:
Mr Moitinho de Almeida, and
Mr Puissochet, Judges                                              1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89;
Sixth Chamber
                                                                   2. annuls Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
( President: Mr Schockweiler)                                           89/44/EEC of 12 December 1988 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
Mr Kakouris,                                                            (IV/27.393 and IV/27.394, Publishers Association —
Mr Kapteyn,                                                             Net Book Agreements);
Mr Murray,
Mr Ragnemalm,                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and all the
Mr Mancini, and                                                         costs incurred by the appellant, both in the proceedings
Mr Hirsch, Judges.                                                      before the Court ofFirst Instance and in the proceedings
                                                                        before this Court, and the costs incurred before this
                                                                        Court relating to the intervention by Clé — The Irish
                                                                        Book Publishers Association and the Booksellers
                                                                        Association of Great Britain and Ireland;
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                4. orders Pentos Pic and Pentos Retailing Group Ltd to
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                  bear their own costs.
                     of 17 January 1995
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .
in Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association v. Commission           (2 ) Case T-66/89, Publishers Association and the Commission,
              of the European Communities ( J )                         ECR II, p. 1995 .
 (Appeal — Competition — Net price system for books —
Rejection of an application for exemption under
Article 85 (3) — Indispensability of restrictions on
                         competition)
                          95/C 54/04
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 17 January 1995
In Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association, whose head                    in Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
office is in London, represented by J. Lever QC, M. Pelling               Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands i 1 )
and R. W. R. Thompson, Barristers, and R. Griffith,                 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Solicitor, of Messrs Clifford Chance, with an address for          90/667/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue                                         period)
Zithe, supported by Clé — The Irish Book Publishers                                           ( 95/C 54/05 )
Association, whose office is in Dublin, represented by J. D.
 Cooke SC and R. Heron, Solicitor, of Messrs Matheson,
 Ormsby & Prentice, with an address for service in                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,
and by Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland,        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
whose office is in London, represented by C. Quigley,                        published in the European Court Reports)
Barrister, and M. Nathanson, Solicitor, of Messrs
Penningtons, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           In Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe — appeal against             Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) v. Kingdom of the
the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Second               Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den
 Chamber ) of 9 July 1992 (2), seeking to have that judgment        Oosterkamp) — application for a declaration that, by failing
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                 to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of
 Commission of the European Communities (B. J. Drijber,             Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying
Agent, assisted by N. Forwood QC), supported by Pentos              down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of
 pic, whose registered office is in London, and Pentos              animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the
 Retailing Group Ltd, whose registered office is in                 prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish
 Birmingham, both represented by R. P. Falkner, Solicitor, of       origin, and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (2 ), the


title: Case C-453/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/42

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency
   (Case C-453/13)
   2013/C 344/72
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Newby Foods Ltd

      Defendant: Food Standards Agency

      Questions referred

               (i)

               Do the words ‘loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ in paragraph 1.14 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) mean ‘any loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy? (The same words appear also in Article 3(n) of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 (2), as amended by Regulations (EC) No. 1923/2006 (3)).

               (ii)

               Can a meat product be classified as a meat preparation within paragraph 1.15 of Annex I where there has been some loss or modification of its muscle fibre structure that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy?

               (iii)

               If the answer to (i) is no and the answer to (ii) is yes, is the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure that is sufficient to require the meat product to be classified as MSM within paragraph 1.14 of Annex I the same as that required to eliminate the characteristics of fresh meat within paragraph 1.15?

               (iv)

               To what extent must the characteristics of fresh meat have been diminished before they can be said to have been eliminated within the meaning of paragraph 1.15?

               (v)

               If the answer to (i) is no, but the answer to (iii) is also no:

                           (a)

                           What degree of modification to the muscle fibre structure is required in order for the product in question to be classified as MSM?

                           (b)

                           What criteria should be used by national courts in determining whether or not the muscle fibre structure of the meat has been modified by that degree?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin
   OJ L 139, p. 55

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
   OJ L 147, p. 1

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1923/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

      OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 1


title: Case C-17/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) — Recruitment procedure — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission
   (Case C-17/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Temporary staff - Contract staff - Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) - Recruitment procedure - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 107/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Wineke Neirinck (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission dismissing the application of the appellant seeking (i) annulment of the Commission's decisions rejecting her candidature for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) and appointing another applicant to that post and (ii) award of damages — Concept of interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service, principle of the administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials and principle of proper administration.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v Commission in so far as the Court dismissed the plea in law alleging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons vitiated the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had failed the oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

               2.

               dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

               3.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had failed the oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

               4.

               dismisses the action for the remainder;

               5.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, the entire costs of Mrs Neirinck before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-437/05: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling of The Okresní soud v Českém Krumlově, Czech Republic) — Jan Vorel v Nemocnice Český Krumlov (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social Policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directives 93/104/EC and 2003/88/EC — Concept of working time — Periods of inactivity during on-call duty provided by a doctor at his place of work — Classification — Effect on the remuneration of the person concerned)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/12

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling of The Okresní soud v Českém Krumlově, Czech Republic) — Jan Vorel v Nemocnice Český Krumlov
   (Case C-437/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social Policy - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Directives 93/104/EC and 2003/88/EC - Concept of ‘working time’ - Periods of inactivity during on-call duty provided by a doctor at his place of work - Classification - Effect on the remuneration of the person concerned)
   (2007/C 56/20)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Okresní soud v Českém Krumlově (Český Krumlov District Court)
   Parties

      Applicant: Jan Vorel

      Defendant: Nemocnice Český Krumlov (Český Krumlov Hospital)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní Soud v Českém Krumlově — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 18 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — Meaning of working time — National legislation regarding periods of inactivity during the on-call period of a doctor at his place of work as not constituting working time
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Directive 93/104/EC of the Council of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, and Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time should be interpreted as:

                           —

                           precluding national legislation under which on-call duty performed by a doctor under a system where he is expected to be physically present at the place of work, but in the course of which he does no actual work, is not treated as wholly constituting ‘working time’ within the meaning of the said directives;

                           —

                           not preventing a Member State from applying legislation on the remuneration of workers and concerning on-call duties performed by them at the workplace which makes a distinction between the treatment of periods in the course of which work is actually done and those during which no actual work is done, provided that such a system wholly guarantees the practical effect of the rights conferred on workers by the said directives in order to ensure the effective protection of their health and safety.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case T-745/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — BPCE v ECB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/40

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — BPCE v ECB
   (Case T-745/16)
   (2017/C 006/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BPCE (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank’s Decision No ECB/SSM/2016-9695005MSXI0YEMGDF46/195 of 24 August 2016;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs in any event.

      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 lack of competence vitiates the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 August 2016 rejecting the request of the applicant for exposure on the French Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, resulting from centralised funds in the context of regulated savings, to be excluded from the leverage ratio calculation (‘the contested decision’), in so far as, having confirmed that the conditions laid down in the applicable EU legislation had been met, the ECB was not competent to refuse to grant the exclusion requested.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging several errors of law on the part of the ECB. The applicant claims that, even if the ECB had been competent to adopt the contested decision, that decision would not be valid since it is vitiated by several errors of law in relation to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2013’) and the intentions of the EU legislature by reason of the fact that the ECB misinterpreted the legislation in question and thus adopted a decision which:

                           —

                           is contrary to the objectives and purpose of the rules on leverage ratio since it disregards not only the objective of leverage ratio legislation itself but also the legislature’s intention as expressed in Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013;

                           —

                           alters the basic provision by taking into consideration two additional conditions that are not included in the provision at issue;

                           —

                           renders Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 ineffective.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment, in particular with regard to the nature of centralised regulated saving funds, with regard to the implications associated with inclusion of the funds in the bank’s balance sheet and with regard to the adjustment mechanism for centralised funds.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of several general principles of EU law, namely the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the ECB breached its duty to exercise due diligence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision inasmuch as, although the ECB was subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons, the contested decision is inadequately and ambiguously reasoned.


title: Case T-818/16: Action brought on 22 November 2016 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/51

         Action brought on 22 November 2016 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission
   (Case T-818/16)
   (2017/C 030/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: C. Alberdingk Thijm, S. van Schaik and S. van Velze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 1 September 2016 declaring an amendment to the German act on measures for the promotion of German cinema in its seventh version compatible with the internal market (1); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2).

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 13 (1) AVMSD in deciding that the German measure is compatible with this article interpreted in light of the proposed amendment.

                           —

                           The Commission violated Articles 2 (1), 2 (2) and 3 AVMSD in deciding that the German measure does not impinge the Country of Origin Principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 110 TFEU in finding that the German measure is not discriminatory to on-demand audiovisual media service providers (‘VOD providers’) established outside Germany but targeting German audiences.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 56 TFEU in failing to assess whether the German measure infringes the freedom to provide services, which it does.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 49 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 49 TFEU in failing to assess whether the German measure infringes the freedom of establishment, which it does.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission violated Article 107 TFEU in finding that the German measure is a form of State Aid that can be justified by a cultural aim and is compatible with the Internal Market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements.

                           —

                           The Commission violated essential procedural requirements in failing to meet the standards of motivation as laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU and of the right to good administration as set out in Article 41 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘EUCFR’).

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (notified under document C(2016) 5551) (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 63).

      (2)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (‘AVMSD’) (OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1)


title: Case C-216/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/10

         Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
   (Case C-216/05)
   (2005/C 193/17)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by making the full and effective participation of the public in certain environmental impact assessments subject to prior payment of participation fees, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 6 and 8 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2),

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Irish planning law provides that participation fees can be charged to members of the public by planning authorities and by a planning appeals board for submitting observations or expressing opinions in planning procedures and for submitting observations in planning appeals. The Commission submits that the levying of such participation fees constitutes a breach of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC, on the following grounds:

               —

               no express provision of the directive permits the levying of such fees;

               —

               such fees are contrary to the scheme and purpose of the directive;

               —

               the wording of Article 6(2) and (3) of the directive does not allow for the latitude in interpretation that Ireland seeks to give it, and;

               —

               Ireland impedes the rights given to the public under Article 6(2) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40

      (2)  OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5


title: Case T-679/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/21

         Action brought on 16 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament
   (Case T-679/13)
   2014/C 85/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2013, partially repeated by the decision of 14 October 2013, and which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements must reimburse EUR 45 476,00 having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those it relies on in Case T-678/13 AENM v Parliament.


title: Case T-524/09: Action brought on 24 December 2009 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/44

         Action brought on 24 December 2009 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)
   (Case T-524/09)
   2010/C 51/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Meredith Corporation (Des Moines, United States) (represented by: R.N. Furneaux and E.A. Hardcastle, Solicitors)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2009 in case R 517/2009-2, insofar as it rejected the application for the Community trade mark concerned for services in class 36, with the consequence that the application will be allowed for such services;

               —

               Uphold the claims of the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings in the event it contests them and dismiss its claim.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 36

      Decision of the examiner: Partially refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in not applying the correct test for assessing whether a trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character to distinguish the goods and services for which registration is sought.


title: Case T-459/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/32

         Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)
   (Case T-459/13)
   2013/C 313/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 2, 6, 10 and 22 — application for Community trade mark No 10 892 446.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-474/16: Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/28

         Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission
   (Case T-474/16)
   (2016/C 371/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (SOWEAR) (Namur, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded;

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well-founded,

         and consequently,

               —

               annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015.


title: Case T-222/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/11
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-221/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                            (2003/C 239/16)                                          into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Mark Amay
                                                                                and in respect of a proposed new vessel MFV Mark Amay;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely,                            ings.
Claregalway, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               03 (1).
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for                    (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Girl Stephanie;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-223/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/18)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty,
                                                                              Burtonport, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers                             lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
                                 munities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-222/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/17)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                      (Language of the case: English)                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           replace the MFV Aine;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers
Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and                —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                     ings.


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-108/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-129/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
                         (2003/C 55/64)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-274/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/67)
                                                                    By order of 5 December 2002 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-120/02 ( 1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-274/02: Commission of the
                         (2003/C 55/65)                             European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-120/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                                Removal from the register of Case C-356/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/68)
        Removal from the register of Case C-129/02 ( 1)             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 55/66)                             from the register of Case C-356/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles): Anne Hennecart
                                                                    v Office National de l’Emploi.
By order of 17 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-33/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/42

         Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-33/05)
   (2005/C 82/74)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama S.A., established in Navalmoral de la Mata (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo, of the Madrid Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty [C(2004) 4030 final] in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 – Raw Tobacco Spain;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision at issue is the same as in case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission
       (1).
   All the allegations are based on the principle of proportionality. That is clear from the fact that the practices investigated were engaged in a market of EUR 25 million and that the fines imposed amount to almost the same sum. In particular, CETARSA was unprepared for a fine equivalent to 7.5 % of its turnover in 2003.
   In support of its arguments the applicant relies on the following pleas:

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment arising from the imposition of substantial fines on processors and token fines on producers on the basis of arguments applicable to both sectors.

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the facts of the case (official support for regulation of the sector by way of agreements between producers and processors, the limited scale of the markets affected, the absence of effects, etc) which would have justified considering the practices involved as 'serious' conduct, rather than 'very serious'

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the duration of the practices.

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the applicant's participation in the practices complained of, which was based solely on its market share and failed to take account of other factors which distinguish its position.

               —

               The methodology used by the Commission in order to determine the basic amounts leads to the imposition of disproportionate fines in the case of small undertakings, such as the applicant.

               —

               Arbitrary application of the Leniency Notice without any justification by the Commission of that difference in treatment and the breach of the applicant's rights of defence.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case C-156/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-156/17)
   (2017/C 168/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

               2.

               Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands on the ground that it has not proved satisfactorily that its shareholders or participants satisfy the conditions laid down in Netherlands legislation?

               3.

               Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, on the ground that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis at the latest in the eighth month following the end of the financial year, even if, in the country in which that investment fund is established, under the legislation there applicable, the proceeds of its investments, to the extent to which they are not distributed, (a) are deemed to have been distributed, and/or (b) are taken into account in the tax levied in that country on the shareholders or participants as though those profits had been distributed, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?


title: Case C-10/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Rafael de Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union (Appeals — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of work done for another State )

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Rafael de Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-10/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2008/C 22/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Rafael de Bustamante Tello (represented by: R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and D. Canga Fano, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Bustamante Tello v Council (T-368/03), dismissing an action for annulment of the Council's decision of 28 July 2003 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr de Bustamante Tello to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case F-105/11: Action brought on 17 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Action brought on 17 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-105/11)
   2012/C 6/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 29 June 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against rejection of the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 25 March 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-467/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/34

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-467/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/53)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-486/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl
   (Case C-486/07)
   (2008/C 22/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

      Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl
   Question referred
   ‘On the basis of the EEC regulations in force at the time of the facts of the case (1994 to 1995) on the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies, do the price reductions laid down in respect of the presence of a higher moisture content than that of the standard quality apply also to the sale of maize?’


title: Case C-257/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2006 — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2006 — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma
   (Case C-257/06)
   (2006/C 212/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roby Profumi Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Parma
   Question referred
   Is Article 10(8) of Law No 713/1986, as amended by Article 9(4) of Legislative Decree No 126/1997, compatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Directive 76/768/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 93/35/EEC (2)?

      (1)  OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976.

      (2)  OJ L 151 of 23.6.1993.


title: Case T-526/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/53

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission
   (Case T-526/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/93)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission;

               —

               order the original applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal as well as the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission. That judgment annulled the decision of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities to reject the candidature of the original applicant for the post of head of the ‘Calls for tenders and contracts’ unit and ordered the Commission to pay him EUR 2 000 by way of damages for non-material harm.
   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas in law.
   1.   Infringement of Community law resulting from the confirmation that there was a defensible interest in bringing the action for annulment
   The Commission's first head of challenge is that the application for annulment of the rejection decision was held to be admissible, notwithstanding the fact that the original applicant did not have a defensible interest in bringing the action challenging the appointing decision inasmuch as a claim for damages was introduced at the same time. That finding, the Commission argues, was wrong in law and could give rise to uncertainty as regards the implementation measures under Article 233 EC. The rule which states that inadmissibility of an action for annulment automatically entails the inadmissibility of a claim for damages directly connected to that action is not applicable where there is no danger that the claim for damages is being used as a means by which to circumvent the necessary preliminary proceedings or other conditions governing admissibility, with the result that a claim for damages may be admissible even though the action for annulment is inadmissible because of the absence of a defensible interest.
   2.   Failure to provide a statement of reasons in interpreting and making a finding of ‘non-material harm’
   Second, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in paragraph 219 of the judgment under appeal when it found that the original applicant had actually suffered non-material harm on the ground that he had been denied the right to a proper review of his application. That finding necessarily implies that the unlawfulness of a decision rejecting a candidature constitutes, per se, non-material harm. Such an interpretation fails to recognise that non-contractual liability on the part of the Community depends on the presence of three cumulative conditions: first, the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused; second, the actual occurrence of the harm alleged; and, third, a causal connection between the two.


title: Case C-426/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others v Vlaams Gewest

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others v Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-426/16)
   (2016/C 383/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant, VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique, IVZW, Islamitische Federatie van België, VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique, VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

      Intervening party: Global Action in the Interest of Animals, VZW

      Question referred

   Is Article 4(4), read in conjunction with Article 2(k), of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (1) of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing invalid due to the infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 13 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, in that they provide that animals may be slaughtered in accordance with special methods required by religious rites without being stunned only if such slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse falling within the scope of Regulation No 853/2004, (2) whereas there is insufficient capacity in the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region) to meet the annual demand for the ritual slaughter of unstunned animals on the occasion of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, and the costs of converting temporary slaughter establishments, approved and monitored by the authorities, for the purpose of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, into slaughterhouses falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, do not appear relevant to achieving the objectives pursued of animal welfare and public health and do not appear proportionate thereto?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).


title: Case C-220/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (España) of  15 May 2006  — Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia. v Administración del Estado (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (España) of 15 May 2006 — Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia. v Administración del Estado (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia)
   (Case C-220/06)
   (2006/C 178/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish.
   Referring court
   Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (National High Court, Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociacion Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia

      Defendant: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia
   Question(s) referred
   Are Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 86 thereof, as applied within the framework of the liberalisation of the postal services established by Directives 1997/67/EC (1) and 2002/39/EC (2) and within the framework of the rules governing public procurement introduced by the ad hoc Directives, to be interpreted as precluding an agreement whose subject-matter includes the provision of postal services, both reserved and unreserved and, therefore, liberalised, concluded between a department of the State Administration and a state company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which is furthermore, the universal postal service provider?

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. (OJ L 1998 15, p. 14).

      (2)  Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services. (OJ L 2002 176, p. 21).


title: Joined Cases T-217/99, T-321/00 and T-222/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — Sinaga v Commission (Sugar — Poseima Programme — Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 — Sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Definition of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community — Statement of reasons — Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — Sinaga v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-217/99, T-321/00 and T-222/01) (1)

   (Sugar - Poseima Programme - Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 - Sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Definition of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community - Statement of reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)
   (2006/C 281/45)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas (Sinaga) SA (Ponta Delgada, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: in Case T-217/99, initially A. Alves Vieira and P. Oliver, then G. Berscheid, Agents, assisted by F. Costa Leite, lawyer, and in Cases T-221/01 and T-321/00, initially A. Alves Vieira and G. Berscheid, and then by G. Berscheid, assisted initially by N. Castro Marques, lawyer, and then F. Costa Leite, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment, firstly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/1999 of 30 June 1999 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the 1999/2000 marketing year for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 58); secondly, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/01 for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 (OJ 2000 L 167, p. 6) and also of the annex thereto and, thirdly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2001 of 28 June 2001 establishing the forecast supply balance for sugar for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 176, p. 12) inasmuch as they set the quantities of sugar considered necessary for supplying the Azores
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 333, 20.11.1999.


title: Case C–394/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 — Zipcar, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark ZIPCAR — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CICAR)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 — Zipcar, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C–394/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word mark ZIPCAR - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CICAR)
   2009/C 220/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Zipcar, Inc. (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2008 in Case T-36/07 Zipcar v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for registration of the word mark ‘ZIPCAR’ for goods in Classes 9, 39 and 42 against decision R 122/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 November 2006 rejecting the action against the decision of the Opposition Division partially refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the national word mark ‘CICAR’ for services in Class 39

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Zipcar Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-588/15: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission (Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreements — Suspension of payments — Lifting of the suspension — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/35

         Order of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission
   (Case T-588/15) (1)

   ((Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements - Suspension of payments - Lifting of the suspension - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 305/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich (Germany)) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Commission Decisions of 29 July and 19 August 2015 to suspend all payments that might be made to the applicant by Directorates E ‘Health’ and F ‘Bio-economy’ of its Directorate-General (DG) for Research and Innovation, secondly, Commission Decision of 25 August 2015 instructing the coordinator of project Biofector not to transfer any amount to the applicant in the context of that project, thirdly, Commission Decision of 28 August 2015 maintaining the suspension of payments by Directorate E of its DG for Research and Innovation, fourthly, Commission Decision of 15 September 2015 instructing the coordinators of projects ‘The hip trial’ and EU-CERT-ICD not to transfer any amount to the applicant in the context of those projects, fifthly, Commission Decision of 5 October 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project NEMO, to consider the applicant’s costs ineligible and to adjust as a result the payments due to the applicant, sixthly, Commission Decision of 14 October 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project Procardio, to suspend payments to the applicant by Directorate G ‘Energy’ of its DG for Research and Innovation, seventhly, Commission Decisions of 23 October and 6 November 2015 taken in execution of that decision of 28 August 2015 and addressed to the coordinators of projects LENA and Re-liver and, eighthly, Commission Decision of 11 November 2015, addressed to the coordinator of project ENS@T-Cancer, to consider the applicant’s costs ineligible and to adjust as a result the payments due to it.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-155/07: Action brought on 20 March 2007 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

         Action brought on 20 March 2007 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-155/07)
   (2007/C 155/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Baas and D. Gauci, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, Agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment, for infringement of the EC Treaty, of Council Decision 2006/1016/EC (1) of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community

               —

               The Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament relies on one single plea in law in support of its action, alleging the incorrect choice of legal basis for the contested decision. Since that decision essentially concerns the developing countries among the countries eligible or potentially eligible for European Investment Bank financing under Community guarantee, it should have been adopted on the joint basis of Articles 179 EC and 181a EC, and not solely on the basis of Article 181a EC, which precludes cooperation with developing countries from its scope.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 414, p. 95.


title: Case C-592/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Anssi Ketelä (Agriculture — Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005 and 1974/2006 — Setting up aid for young farmers — Conditions for grant — Setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding — Conditions governing applicability where the person concerned sets up using a legal person)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Anssi Ketelä
   (Case C-592/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005 and 1974/2006 - Setting up aid for young farmers - Conditions for grant - Setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding - Conditions governing applicability where the person concerned sets up using a legal person)
   2012/C 399/12
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anssi Ketelä

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) and Article 13(4) and (6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15) — Conditions for the grant of setting-up support for young farmers — First establishment support on an agricultural holding as heading of holding — Setting-up support granted to a natural person on the basis of acquiring a family farm — Interruption of the payment of the support on the ground that the recipient of the support had previously been a minority shareholder and general manager of a joint-stock company rearing pigs in particular.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down by that provision that the person concerned must be setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as ‘head of the holding’ means, in a situation in which the person concerned sets up using a limited company, that he has effective and long-term control and management of the agricultural holding.
   While it is open to the Member States to lay down conditions from which it may be concluded that an aid applicant has the capacity of head of the holding, this is subject to the proviso that such conditions do not go beyond the framework that they aim to define and, therefore, in compliance with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1698/2005, ensure that that applicant has effective and long-term control and management of the agricultural holding. National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings satisfy such requirements as they provide that where a young farmer sets up using a legal person, the grant of aid is conditional on the fact that he has the decision-making power in the company, which requires that he holds more than half of the shares in that company and that those shares represent more than half of the votes.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-139/00: Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
8.7.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 192/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   products to agricultural industries in Extremadura. It is
                                                                                intended solely to promote stable relations between
— Manifest error of assessment, in that part of the aid                           local producers and local processing industries, by
    declared by the Commission to be incompatible has not                         ensuring supplies of raw materials to the latter (this
    been paid; no aid payments were effected after 30 June                        being something which the market alone seems to be
    1998.                                                                         unable to guarantee).
                                                                              — The Commission maintains that the criteria laid down
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account                        in its Communication on aid in the form of subsidised
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the                       short-term loans (OJ C 44 of 16.2.1996, p. 2) are not
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment                      fulfilled. However, if the aid is not granted to all
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:                 operators in the agricultural sector, the products
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement                       concerned are determined in a non-discriminatory
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on                        manner as regards aid to industries which enter into
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form                          contracts for the processing of the raw materials
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the                     purchased by them. Moreover, there is no discrimi-
    common market.                                                                nation, since the excluding criterion is not that a
                                                                                particular sector must be involved but that operators
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with                        in any of the sectors concerned must have agreed to
    Article 253 EC:                                                               standardise their contractual relations; any sector
                                                                                which approves a regional contract becomes eligible
    — According to the Commission, aid to industries granted                      to receive aid. Furthermore, the interest-rate rebates
         prior to 30 June 1998 cannot fall within any of the                      exclusively affect the financing arrangements for the
         derogations, provided for in Article 87(3), since it                     purchase of agricultural products pursuant to the
         adversely affects trading conditions by imposing                         approved contracts. The aid has a lasting effect on the
         restrictions on the free movement of goods. However,                     development of the sector, since it has contributed to
         that assertion is incorrect: such an adverse effect on                   the establishment of coordinated, stable contractual
         trade may prevent Article 87(3)(a) from applying, but                    relations between the industry and the primary sector,
         not Article 87(3)(a).                                                    and its effects have proved capable of developing an
                                                                                industrial framework and of providing security for the
                                                                                rural population. Finally, in view of the amounts
    — The Commission considers that the derogation con-                           received by the farmers concerned, it is difficult to see
         tained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable because the                in what way the common organisation of the market
         aid was granted not as regional aid but as operating                     for the products in question can have been affected.
         aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s
         reasoning is inconsistent. The aid is intended to
         promote economic development in a region where the
         standard of living is low and there is very serious
         unemployment. In particular, the industrial aid scheme
         had a clear social purpose, in that it sought to introduce
         stable relations between producers and processors,
         protecting them by means of officially approved
         contracts for the sale and purchase of raw materials             Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of
         and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing indus-           the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         tries and the location of those industries in the
         production areas. In view of the foregoing, the Com-
         mission should have reasoned that the aid did not fall                                   (Case C-139/00)
         within the scope of Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact
         that the measures concerned are specific rather than                                     (2000/C 192/13)
         general. It should also, at the very least, have provided
         justification for its decision, adopted in the exercise of
         its discretion, not to authorise small-scale aid designed        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
         to mitigate an abnormally serious situation within the           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
         Community. By failing to do so, it has infringed                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
         Article 253 EC.                                                  represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC:                                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre.
    — The Commission maintains that the aid scheme in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         question restricts the free movement of goods
         (Article 28 EC), in that it may adversely affect trade.          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
         That does not prevent the derogation from applying.                  order to ensure, with regard to the three automatic waste
         The scheme does not preclude undertakings in other                   incineration plants located at Mazo and Barlovento on the
         Member States from introducing and selling their                     island of Palma, the application of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.7.2000
     — Article 2 of Directive 89/369/EEC (1), inasmuch as the            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
          three plants are operating without any authorisation           the Court should:
          having been issued for that purpose;
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force and to communi-
     — Article 6 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as, with                   cate to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit
          regard to the said plants, the competent authorities                the national measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                              Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2)
          — have not taken the periodic measurements in                       and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC (1), the French Republic has
              relation to the parameters prescribed by that article;          failed to comply with its obligations under Article 15 of
                                                                              the said directive;
          — have not given prior authorisation for the sampling
              and measurement procedures or determined the               (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
              location of the measurement points concerned;
          — have not laid down any measurement programme;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     — Article 7 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as the
          three plants are not equipped with auxiliary burners           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
          enabling a minimum combustion temperature of 850°              of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
          to be guaranteed, particularly during start-up and shut-       such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
          down operations,                                               necessary in order to transpose directives into their national
                                                                         legal order within the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations           limit fixed in Article 15(1) of the directive at issue in the
     under Directive 89/369/EEC;                                         present case expired on 24 October 1998 but France has not
                                                                         adopted the measures necessary to transpose the provisions of
(2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         the articles referred to above.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of
                                                                             privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998,
Although the mandatory start-up authorisation had not been                   p. 1).
given, the automatic incineration plants located at Mazo and
Barlovento started to operate in January 1992; consequently,
Directive 89/369/EEC must be regarded as applicable to the
present case. In its letter of 3 February 1999 forwarding
information provided by the Consejerı́a de Industria y Comer-
cio (Ministry of Industry and Commerce) of the Government
of the Canaries, the Spanish Government acknowledged the
non-compliance indicated above.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the investigating
                                                                         judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout, by
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
                                                                         order of 13 April 2000 in criminal proceedings against
    L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                                     P. der Weduwe
                                                                                (Case C-153/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         European Communities by order of 13 April 2000 by the
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         investigating judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, (First
                                                                         Instance Court), Turnhout which was received at the Court
                          (Case C-151/00)                                Registry on 25 April 2000, in criminal proceedings against
                                                                         P. der Weduwe for a preliminary ruling on the following
                          (2000/C 192/14)                                questions:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Where a credit institution authorised in a Member State in
Court of Justice on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of the               which breaches of banking secrecy are a criminal offence
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin, of its              operates, under the freedom to provide services, in another
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Member State where there is no analogous banking secrecy,
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its             must Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 interpreted: