title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 1999 in Case C-315/97 P: Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Officials - Decisions of the Commission refusing to grant special leave for elections and travelling time - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 204/20                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
     Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment               1. Declared that, by failing to take, in the old Länder, the steps
     services in the securities field, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg            necessary to ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that              the limit values set under Article 3 of Council Directive
     directive.                                                                 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
                                                                                bathing water within a period of ten years following its
2. Ordered the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                      notification on 10 December 1975, and by not adhering to the
                                                                                minimum sampling frequency prescribed in the annex, the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive:
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                            2. Ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                             of 8 June 1999                                                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 March 1999
in Case C-198/97: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                            in Case C-315/97 P: Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water —
Admissibility of an action brought pursuant to Article 226                  (Appeal — Officials — Decisions of the Commission
EC (ex Article 169) — Reasoned opinion — Observance of                      refusing to grant special leave for elections and travelling
the principle of the collegiality of the Commission —                       time — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
Failure to comply with Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Directive
                              76/160/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/39)
                            (1999/C 204/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-315/97 P: Diego Echauz Brigaldi, César Montoliu
                                                                            Garcı́a, Marı́a Jesús Ruı́z Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,
                                                                            Marı́a Carmen Labrador Rubio and Leopoldo Fabra Utray,
In Case C-198/97, Commission of the European Communities                    officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
(Agent: Claudia Schmidt, assisted by Alexander Böhlke) v                    represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Claus-                 Burgos and Madrid Bars, with an address for service in Brussels
Dieter Quassowski) — application for a declaration that, by                 at the Chambers of J. and B. Cremades and Associates, 391
failing to take, in the old Länder, the steps necessary to ensure           Avenue Louise — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
that the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values              First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)
set under Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8                    of 9 July 1997 in Case T-156/95 Echauz Brigaldi and Others v
December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ                   Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-509, seeking to have that
1976 L 31, p. 1) within a period of 10 years following its                  judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
notification on 10 December 1975, and by not adhering to                    the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
the minimum sampling frequency prescribed in the annex, the                 Currall, assisted by José Rivas Andrés), defendant in the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            proceedings at first instance, and José Luis Buendı́a Sierra,
under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive — the Court                  Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López, Inmacula-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the            da Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcı́a Velázquez, Carmen Casado
Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                    Salinas, Diego González Marı́n, Eva Marı́a Rasines Martı́n and
C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                 Julio Vizcarra Soriano, officials of the Commission of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June                European Communities, applicants in the proceedings at first
1999, in which it:                                                          instance — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/21
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, G.F. Mancini                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs
    of these proceedings.                                                                          of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
                                                                           in Case C-249/98 P: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Remuneration — Weightings — Breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment and equivalence of purchasing
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          power — Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/41)
                         of 11 March 1999
in Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA and Hubert Ségaud
and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal — Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings
                   — Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (1999/C 204/40)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-249/98 P: appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 May 1998 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     T-177/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-705,
                   in the European Court Reports)                          brought by Mario Costacurta, official of the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, rep-
In Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA, a company incorporated                      resented by Albert Rodesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
under French law, established at Saint-Martin-d’Écublei                   address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers,
(France), Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud, residing at                    7-11 Route d’Esch, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
Saint-Martin-d’Écublei, represented by Laurence Roques, of the            the other party to the proceedings being Commission of
Val-de-Marne Bar, 7-9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
(France) — appeal against the order of the Court of First                  Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
16 February 1998 in Case T-182/97 Smanor and Others v                      J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,
Commission [1998] ECR II-271, seeking to have that order set               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Commission             11 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright
and Olivier Couvert-Castéra) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                 1. The appeal is dismissed.
Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
11 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                  2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Smanor SA and Mr and Mrs Ségaud are to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case T-240/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 September 2007 — France v Commission (European Atomic Energy Community — Investments — Communication to Commission of investment projects — Procedures — Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003 — Commission's lack of competence — Articles 41 EA to 44 EA — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 September 2007 — France v Commission
   (Case T-240/04) (1)

   (European Atomic Energy Community - Investments - Communication to Commission of investment projects - Procedures - Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003 - Commission's lack of competence - Articles 41 EA to 44 EA - Principle of legal certainty)
   (2007/C 269/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, C. Lemaire and E. Puisais, then by G. De Bergues and S. Gasri, agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by C.-D Quassowski and A. Tiemann, agents) and Kingdom of Belgium (represented initially by D. Haven, then by M. Wimmer, and then by A Hubert, agents, assisted by J.-F. De Bock, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003 of 23 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1209/2000 determining procedures for effecting the communications prescribed under Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2003 L 192, p. 15).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003 of 23 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1209/2000 determining procedures for effecting the communications prescribed under Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the French Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003 (formerly Case C-455/03).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2000 in Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility)

text:
9.9.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/23
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Auditors of the European Communities — application for
                                                                          suspension of operation of the decision of 15 May 2000
                          of 28 June 2000                                 relieving the applicant from her position as team leader in the
                                                                          Italian section of the translation service — the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 3 July 2000, the
in Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer v Council of the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(Retirement pension — Weighting — Action for annulment
                        — Inadmissibility)                                2.    The costs are reserved.
                          (2000/C 259/41)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer, a former official of            Action brought on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna Gonzá-
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   lez del Valle against the Commission of the European
Munich (Germany), represented by H.J. Winzen and M. Anger-                                            Communities
maier, Rechtsanwälte, Munich, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, v                                          (Case T-130/00)
Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer and
P.M. Cossu) — application for a declaration that, by applying
to the calculation of the applicant’s pension a weighting for                                       (2000/C 259/43)
Germany which was not fixed on the basis of the cost of living
in Berlin, the Council has infringed the EC Treaty — the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 28 June 2000, the operative part of which                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is as follows:                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;                            González del Valle, residing in Madrid, represented by José
                                                                          Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer.
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          —     ‘partially’ annul the Commission’s decisions appointing
                                                                                the applicant initially as a probationer official (decision
                                                                                of 28 March 1989, taking effect from 1 March 1989) and
                                                                                subsequently as an official definitively classed in grade B3
                                                                                (decision of 14 November 1989, taking effect from
                                                                                1 December 1989), but only inasmuch as those decisions
                                                                                classified him in grade 3 of category B instead of grade 1,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                    that being the grade corresponding to him;
                            INSTANCE
                                                                          —     declare that the applicant is entitled to pecuniary compen-
                           of 3 July 2000                                       sation corresponding to the remuneration which he
                                                                                would have received if, as should have happened, he had
in Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Audi-                          been appointed a grade B1 official, and which he did not
              tors of the European Communities                                  receive, during the period running from his appointment
                                                                                as a probationer official to the present time, together with
                                                                                interest at the statutory rate;
        (Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 259/42)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant in the present case contests his appointment in
In Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti, an official of the                 grade 3 of category B. He maintains in that connection that
Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in                that appointment must be regarded as erroneous, inasmuch
Luxembourg, represented by G. Vogel and F. Burg, of the                   as, having been called to attend interviews in competitions
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 COM/B/611 (B 1) and COM/B/612 (B 2/3), the applicant never
at the latter’s Chambers, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v Court of              attended the interview corresponding to the latter competition.


title: Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Grundig AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-210/97)

text:
 C 318/22                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
 Communities on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu, residing                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 at Chelles ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of
 the Paris Bar, 9 rue Alfred de Vigny, Paris.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
                                                                         which imported colour television sets from Turkey
 The applicant claims that the Court should censure                      continuously during the period from 1 January 1991 to
 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1103/97.                                    15 January 1994 and which is also contesting a
                                                                         Commission decision addressed to Germany stating that
                                                                         the remission of import duties is not justified in the case
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     of the applicant, are the same as those in Cases T-187/
                                                                         97 H and T-l 92/97 (2).
 The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,                     (') See page 18 of this Official Journal .
 directs his action against Council Regulation ( EC )                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
 No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions
 relating to the introduction of the euro, which in
 particular replaces every reference to the ecu in legal
 instruments by a reference to the euro . It follows a
 previous action which the applicant directed against the
 Commission's decision, given on 16 October 1996 ,
 proposing to the Council the text of the above Regulation               Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Hertie Waren- und
 ( Case T-175/96 (*)). That first action was held by the                 Kaufhaus GmbH against the Commission of the European
 Court of First Instance to be manifestly inadmissible. The                                           Communities
 applicant had already stated in his first application that, if                                     Case T-2 11/97
 the Court of First Instance accepted the Commission's
 argument concerning inadmissibility, he would bring                                                 ( 97/C 318/44 )
 another action against the Regulation itself. Accordingly,
the pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-175/96 .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997, p. 19 .                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997
                                                                        by Hertie Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, Frankfurt am
                                                                        Main, represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte,
                                                                        Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.
Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Grundig AG against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           ( Case T-210/97)
                             ( 97/C 318/43 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
                                                                                1997 ( REM: 18/96 ) refusing the remission of customs
                 (Language of the case: German)                                duties amounting to DM 593 110,16,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Grundig AG, Fiirth ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.                          which imported colour television sets from Turkey during
                                                                       the period from 1 September 1992 to 1 March 1994 and
                                                                       which is also contesting a Commission decision addressed
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            to Germany stating that the remission of import duties is
                                                                       not justified in the case of the applicant, are the same as
                                                                       those in Cases T-186/97 (') and T-191/97 ( 2).
— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
     1997 ( REM: 17/96 ) refusing the remission of a sum               (') See page 17 of this Official Journal .
     amounting to DM 6 596 210,31 ,                                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-134/06: Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/87

         Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v Commission
   (Case F-134/06)
   (2006/C 326/175)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giovanni Bordini (Dover, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi, C. Ronzi and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the appointing authority refused to recognise that the applicant was resident in the United Kingdom and, in consequence, refused to apply the weighting for the United Kingdom to his pension;

               —

               order the defendant to pay interest — on the basis of a rate two points higher than the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, and applicable during the period concerned, for major refinancing operations — on the amounts payable by virtue of retroactive application of the United Kingdom weighting to the applicant's pension with effect from 1 April 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant argues, first, that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as it is framed in terms so vague that it is not possible to understand the underlying reasoning.
   The applicant additionally invokes infringement of Article 82 of the former Staff Regulations and Article 20 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations; a manifest error of assessment of the facts giving rise to an error in law; breach of the principle of proportionality; and failure to respect the right to privacy.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that the Commission was in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-510/09: Action brought on 9 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/24

         Action brought on 9 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-510/09)
   2010/C 37/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not notifying at the planning stage the decree of 13 March 2006 concerning the use of unprepared blends of products referred to in Paragraph L.253-1 of the Rural Code in the context of the procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of 20 July 1998 (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the European Commission complains that the defendant did not notify it, before its adoption, of the ministerial decree at issue concerning the use of unprepared blends of phytopharmaceutical products with an agricultural value, although that decree clearly constitutes a technical rule within the meaning of Directive 98/34 and which should, on that ground, have been notified to it at the planning stage since it is not covered by the derogation under Article 10 of that directive.
   According to the Commission, the defendant acknowledged the relevance of that infringement since, following the receipt of the reasoned opinion, the French authorities notified the Commission of a draft decree repealing the ministerial decree at issue and reproducing its substance. However, at the date the present action was brought, that draft decree had still not been adopted by the French authorities or, in any event, the Commission had still not been informed thereof.

      (1)  Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).


title: Case C-396/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Daniela Lotti and Clara Matteucci

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Daniela Lotti and Clara Matteucci
   (Case C-396/08)
   (2008/C 327/14)
   Language of the case: Italy
   Referring court
   Corte d'Appello di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Defendants: Daniela Lotti and Clara Matteucci
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Italian State legislation (Article 7(1) of Law No 638/83) which results in periods not worked under ‘vertical’ part-time arrangements not being taken into account as periods of qualifying contributions for the purpose of acquiring pension rights compatible with Directive 97/81/EC (1), and in particular Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] concerning the principle of non-discrimination?

               2.

               Are those national provisions compatible with Directive 97/81/EC and, in particular, Clause 1 [of the Framework Agreement], which provides that national legislation must facilitate the development of part-time work, and Clauses and 5, which provide that the Member States are to eliminate obstacles of a legal nature which may limit access to part-time work, since it is unquestionable that the failure to take into account for pension purposes the weeks not worked constitutes a significant disincentive to choosing ‘vertical’ part-time working arrangements?

               3.

               Can Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] on the principle of non-discrimination also be extended to various kinds of part-time contract, in view of the fact that, in the case of ‘horizontal’ part-time work, where the total number of hours worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar year is equal, all the weeks of the calendar year are taken into account under national legislation, whereas they are not in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work — OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.


title: Case T-325/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/21

         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-325/12)
   2012/C 273/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and M. de Ree, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2012 with reference SG-Greffe (2012) D/3150 in Case SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and N 528/2009 — Netherlands/ING — restructuring aid);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the principle of due care.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to adopt the contested decision without affording the Netherlands the opportunity of expressing its views on the grounds on which the Commission comes to the conclusion in the decision that the Netherlands granted aid to ING by agreeing to amended repayment terms.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the Commission infringed the principle of due care by adopting the decision without taking account of the arguments put forward by the Netherlands in the earlier proceedings before the General Court which led to the judgment of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10, and in which the Court concurred with those arguments.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the decision is incompatible with Article 107 TFEU, because in point 213 of that decision the Commission stated on incorrect grounds that the amendment of the repayment terms involves State aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission has not implemented correctly the General Court’s judgment of 2 March 2012, and has infringed Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU because, in the decision, it made approval of the capital injection subject to the same compensatory measures as in the earlier decision of 2009 (which the General Court annulled in its decision of 2 March 2012), although the Commission estimated that the aid is EUR 2 billion lower than the previous amount.


title: Case C-292/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron by order of that court of 8 June 2005 in Irini Lekhoritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos and G. Dimopoulos v the State of the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron by order of that court of 8 June 2005 in Irini Lekhoritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos and G. Dimopoulos v the State of the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-292/05)
   (2005/C 243/12)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Efetio Patron (Court of Appeal, Patras) of 8 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Irini Lekhoritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos and G. Dimopoulos and the State of the Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:

               1.

               Do actions for compensation which are brought by natural persons against a Contracting State as being liable under civil law for acts or omissions of its armed forces fall within the scope ratione materiae of the Brussels Convention in accordance with Article 1 thereof where those acts or omissions occurred during a military occupation of the plaintiffs' State of domicile following a war of aggression on the part of the defendant, are manifestly contrary to the law of war and may also be considered to be crimes against humanity?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the system of the Brussels Convention for the defendant State to put forward a plea of immunity, with the result, should the answer be in the affirmative, that the very application of the Convention is neutralised, in particular in respect of acts and omissions of the defendant's armed forces which occurred before the Convention entered into force, that is to say during the years 1941-44?


title: Case C-272/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Franco Piemonte against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Franco Piemonte against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)
   (Case C-272/04)
   (2004/C 228/46)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo (District Court, Tolmezzo, Italy) of 16 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 25 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Franco Piemonte against Azienda per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) on the following question:
   Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

      (1)  OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.


title: Case C-251/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Article 24(1) — Honouring an obligation ‘for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings’ — Payment made to a creditor of that debtor)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/29

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA
   (Case C-251/12) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 24(1) - Honouring an obligation ‘for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings’ - Payment made to a creditor of that debtor)
   2013/C 344/50
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce, Brussels

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA

      Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor, at the request of the latter, in the absence of publication of the decision opening insolvency proceedings in another Member State — Discharge of agent acting in good faith — The scope rationae personae — Definition of ‘for the benefit of the debtor’ including solely payments made to the insolvent debtor or also payments made to its creditors

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a payment made at the behest of a debtor subject to insolvency proceedings to one of the latter’s creditors does not fall within the scope of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case C-445/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Docteur De Bruyne SPRL v The Belgian State

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Docteur De Bruyne SPRL v The Belgian State
   (Case C-445/16)
   (2016/C 410/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Docteur De Bruyne SPRL

      Defendant: The Belgian State

      Question referred

   ‘Is the fact that a company issuing a share option may record as income the purchase price of that option in the course of the financial year in which that option is taken up or at the end of its period of validity in order to take into account the risk borne by the option issuer which results from the commitment he makes, [rather than] in the course of the tax year in which the option is purchased and its final price set — the risk borne by the issuer being valued separately by the recording of a provision — compatible with the accounting rules concerning balance sheets laid down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11), according to which:

               —

               the annual accounts are to give a true and fair view of the company’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss (Article 2(3) of the Directive);

               —

               provisions for liabilities and charges are intended to cover losses or debts the nature of which is clearly defined and which at the date of the balance sheet are either likely to be incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as to amount or as to the date on which they will arise (Article 20(1) of the Directive);

               —

               the principle of prudence must in all circumstances be observed, and in particular:

                           —

                           only profits made at the balance sheet date may be included;

                           —

                           account must be taken of all foreseeable liabilities and potential losses arising in the course of the financial year concerned or of a previous one, even if such liabilities or losses become apparent only between the date of the balance sheet and the date on which it is drawn up (Article 31(1) (c), (aa) and (bb) of the Directive);

               —

               account must be taken of income and charges relating to the financial year, irrespective of the date of receipt or payment of such income or charges (Article 31(1)(d) of the Directive);

               —

               the components of asset and liability items are to be valued separately (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive);

         …?’


title: Case T-433/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — SIAE v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/57

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — SIAE v Commission
   (Case T-433/08)
   (2008/C 301/95)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori — SIAE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, M. Mandel, L. Vullo, and S. Valentino, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul Articles 3 and 4(2) of the Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

               —

               order any other measure, including measures of inquiry, that it considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-392/08 AEPI v Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   By the first plea, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC, and lack of a preparatory inquiry, in so far as the Decision makes a finding of concerted practice even though there is no evidence to support that finding apart from the mere fact that many reciprocal representation agreements restrict the power to grant licences to the territory in which the other collecting society operates. In that connection, the Commission disregards the fact that many collecting societies believe that they can best guarantee the rights of their members by entrusting their catalogues or repertoires to collecting societies which can offer efficient protection of the rights of authors and composers and, quite clearly, the societies whose presence in the territory is well established are fully able to satisfy that requirement.
   By the second plea, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC and the illogical nature of the reasons stated in the Decision, in that, in its efforts to demonstrate the practicability of multi-territory licence management for the broadcasting of musical works via satellite or cable, or over the internet, the Commission itself ultimately demonstrates that the collecting societies do not engage in parallel behaviour. The Commission's accusation is in fact invalidated by the examples that it cites itself of the grant by collecting societies of licences covering a broader area than the territory in which an individual society operates.
   By the third plea, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 81 EC because, in the event that the Commission should find that there is concerted practice (which the applicant denies), such a practice would have no restrictive effect on competition in that territorial delimitations constitute the necessary corollary of the exclusivity of the rights held by authors and composers.
   By the fourth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission has acted in breach of the audi alteram partem rule and in infringement of Article 253 EC in so far as it has failed to state adequate reasons as regards the fact that the Commission did not inform the societies of the essential factual evidence on which, following its research into the market, it based its refusal to accept the commitments proposed by SIAE.
   By the fifth plea, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 253 EC through failure to state adequate reasons for its decision; breach of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of legal certainty; and the contradictory and illogical nature of the measures laid down in Article 4(2) of the Decision. The wholly indeterminate nature of the ‘review’ requested from the collecting societies places SIAE unfairly in a situation of uncertainty as regards the identification of measures which are regarded by the Commission as sufficient to put an end to the alleged concerted practice. Furthermore, given that the Commission expressly recognises that the fact of limiting the licence to the territory of the other collecting society does not amount to restriction of competition, it is manifestly incompatible with that premiss to order the collecting societies to carry out a bilateral review of the territorial delimitation in all their licences for broadcasting via satellite or cable, or online, and, thus, to provide the Commission with a copy of the review of all those reciprocal representation agreements. Moreover, since the Commission requires a ‘bilateral’ review of the territorial delimitations, SIAE's full compliance with Article 4(2) of the Decision is nevertheless beyond SIAE'S own decision-making competence, since it is also subject to the independent views of another 23 collecting societies.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 2000 in Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Need to balance interests)

text:
7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 108/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH v Commission of the                   of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                (C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency                   which is as follows:
                  — Need to balance interests)
                                                                         1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                         (2001/C 108/38)                                      Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                                                                              authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for
                                                                              human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,
                  (Language of the case: German)                              Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,
                                                                              Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine
In Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH, established in Konstanz                   (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                2.   Costs are reserved.
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
for placing on the market medicinal products for human                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine                                              INSTANCE
(C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of                                         of 31 October 2000
which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH v the
1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the                      Commission of European Communities
     Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
     authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for     (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
     human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,              authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
     Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,               ing phentermine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
     Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine                                      Need to balance interests)
     (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
2.   Costs are reserved.                                                                          (2001/C 108/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established
                                                                         in Vienna, represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH v Commission of the                    of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing phentermine (C(2000) 452) — the
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency
                  — Need to balance interests)                           1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                                                                              Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                         (2001/C 108/39)                                      authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
                                                                              for human consumption containing the following substance:
                                                                              phentermine (C(2000) 452) is suspended.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Costs are reserved.
In Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH, established in Schwaig
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,


title: Case T-389/06: Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/35

         Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM (representation of a pallet)
   (Case T-389/06)
   (2007/C 20/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

      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 26 September 2006 in Case R 355/2006-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pallet consisting of an elongated rectangular platform or base and an equally elongated flange, ornamented with triangle holes, which are both at a 90 degree angle to each other, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 et 42 — application No 4 073 748

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark is sufficiently distinctive to be registered.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2002 in Case C-274/00 P: Odette Simon v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Person claiming the status of a member of the temporary staff — Application brought out of time — Inadmissibility of application — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 191/6                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.     Declares that, by failing to take the appropriate steps to identify     1.    Dismisses the appeal;
       waters affected by pollution and, consequently, to designate the
       corresponding vulnerable zones, in accordance with Article 3 of         2.    Orders Ms Simon to pay the costs.
       and Annex I to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
       1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
       caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the French Republic       (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
3.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 June 2002
                                                                               in Case C-287/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                             (Sixth Chamber)                                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                               VAT Directive — Articles 2(1) and 13(A)(1)(i) — Research
                                                                               activities of public-sector higher-education establishments
                             of 27 June 2002                                             carried out for consideration — Exemption)
in Case C-274/00 P: Odette Simon v Commission of the                                                       (2002/C 191/10)
                     European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Appeal — Officials — Person claiming the status of a
member of the temporary staff — Application brought out
of time — Inadmissibility of application — Appeal in part                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
 manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)                                          in the European Court Reports)
                             (2002/C 191/09)
                                                                               In Case C-287/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agents: G. Wilms and K. Gross) v Federal Republic of Germany
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and T. Jürgensen): Application for
                                                                               a declaration that, by exempting from value added tax the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         research activities of public-sector higher-education establish-
                     in the European Court Reports)                            ments pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz
                                                                               (Law on Turnover Taxes) of 27 April 1993 (BGBl. 1993 I,
                                                                               p. 565), as amended by Paragraph 4(5) of the Umsatzsteuerge-
                                                                               setz-Änderungsgesetz of 12 December 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I,
                                                                               p. 1851), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
In Case C-274/00 P, Odette Simon, resident in Luxembourg,                      its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive
represented initially by J.-N. Louis, and, subsequently, by                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
L. Misson, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg:                 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
the European Communities (single judge) of 10 May 2000 in                      ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Case T-177/97 Simon v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-75                          composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr
and II-319, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Tim-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                     mermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck),                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in which it:
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                1.    Declares that, by exempting from value added tax the research
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                      activities carried out for consideration by public-sector higher-
has given a judgment on 27 June 2002, in which it:                                   education establishments pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the


title: Case C-296/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA
   (Case C-296/04)
   (2004/C 251/06)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto (Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

               2.

               Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

               3.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end?

               4.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?


title: Case C-345/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014  — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014 — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-345/14)
   2014/C 329/06
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’

      Defendant: Konkurences padome

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the agreement under consideration in the present case, concluded by a lessor of commercial premises and a retailer (the ‘anchor tenant’), which restricts the lessor’s right to decide individually, without the consent of the anchor tenant, to make other lettings of commercial premises to potential competitors of the ‘anchor tenant’, be regarded as an agreement between undertakings whose object is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, for the purposes of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

               2.

               When the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed, must an analysis be made of the structure of the market, and if so, for what purpose?

               3.

               Is the market power of the parties to the agreement under consideration in the present case, and its possible growth, a factor that must necessarily be taken into account when the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed?

               4.

               If, in order to discover the nature of the agreement and to ascertain that the elements of a prohibited agreement are present, it is necessary to determine whether the agreement could possibly affect the market, can such potential effects on the market at the same time form a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement corresponds to the definition of a prohibited agreement, without any need for it to be determined whether that agreement actually produced any adverse effects?


title: Case T-542/08: Action brought on 3 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECHA

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/58

         Action brought on 3 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECHA
   (Case T-542/08)
   (2009/C 44/100)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul European Chemicals Agency's decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tender ECHA/2008/24 for the ‘Development of a Chemical Safety Assessment tool’ (OJ 2008/S 115-152918), communicated to the applicant by an undated letter received by the applicant on 25 September 2008 and all subsequent decisions of ECHA including that to award it to the successful contractor;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 500 000;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the applicant's legal costs incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the European Chemicals Agency's (‘ECHA’) decision which was notified to it by way of a letter on 25 September 2008 informing the applicant that its bid submitted in the framework of the contract ECHA/2008/24 for the ‘Development of a Chemical Safety Assessment tool’ (OJ 2008/S 115-152918) had not been selected and that the contract had been attributed to TRASYS SA.
   The applicant claims that the Evaluation Committee committed multiple errors of assessment in relation to the award criteria, whereas fundamental rules and basic principles of public procurement were allegedly infringed by the contracting authority. Moreover, it is submitted that the ECHA misused its powers in the tender evaluation, infringed the Financial Regulation, and/or the principles of transparency and of equal treatment and that it used vague terms or insufficient motivation to substantiate its decision. Finally, the applicant contends that the defendant breached an essential procedural requirement, deriving from Article 158a of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 (1), providing for a standstill period before signing the contract with the successful tenderer. The applicant claims that the defendant has deliberately delayed communicating with the applicant in order to be able to finalise the signature of the contract with the wining tenderer before it received any comments from the applicant, thus annulling the spirit and purpose of the standstill period.
   In addition, the applicant requests monetary compensation equal to EUR 1 500 000, corresponding to the estimated gross profit from the aforementioned public procurement procedure, should it have been awarded the contract. The applicant submits that its claim for damages is based upon its substantiated arguments that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual and that the institutions concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of their powers.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2007 L 111, p. 13).


title: Case C-78/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) — Irregularities identified during audits of other projects — Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient — Eligible costs — Distortions of the documents on the file)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 October 2015 — European Commission v ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias
   (Case C-78/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contracts relating to EU financial support granted to the Perform and Oasis projects) - Irregularities identified during audits of other projects - Decision of the Commission to suspend reimbursement of the amounts advanced by the recipient - Eligible costs - Distortions of the documents on the file))
   (2015/C 429/03)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, B. Conte and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, dikigoroi)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of 31 March 1998 in the cases of Salvat Editores SA and Others and J. Compañ Calbuig and Others (Cases C-265/98 to C-272/98)

text:
C 278/28                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.9.98
     order to comply with Council Directive 93/65/EEC of                   financing for the sum of BEF 382 208 436 by way of
     19 July 1993 on the definition and use of compatible                  expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
     technical specifications for the procurement of                       export refunds;
     air-traffic management equipment and systems (1),
     alternatively by failing to take the measures necessary          2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has                       proceedings.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                      those in Case C-242/97 (2).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 6.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit laid down by
Article 9 of the Directive expired on 20 July 1994.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
The Commission asserts, in the alternative, that the                  PremieÁre Instance de Charleroi by judgment of that court
Directive confers on nationals of the Member States the               of 2 July 1998 in the case of Tibor Balog v. ASBL Royal
right to respond to invitations to tender prepared in                                Charleroi Sporting Club (RCSC)
accordance with the standards laid down pursuant to
and in accordance with the Directive. For that reason,                                       (Case C-264/98)
internal memoranda circulated by State ministries or                                           (98/C 278/51)
administrative authorities do not constitute an adequate
transposition measure.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
(1) OJ L 187, 27.7.1993, p. 52.                                       PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), Charleroi, of
(2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.                             2 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tibor
                                                                      Balog v. ASBL Royal Charleroi Sporting Club on the
                                                                      following question:
                                                                      Is it compatible with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                      with Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Kingdom                         Economic Area for a football club established in the
of Belgium against the Commission of the European                     territory of a Member State of the European Union to
                            Communities                               claim, on the basis of the rules and circulars of the
                          (Case C-263/98)                             national and international federations (URBSFA, UEFA,
                                                                      FIFA), payment of a transfer sum' on the occasion of the
                           (98/C 278/50)                              engagement of one of its former players, a professional
                                                                      footballer of non-Community nationality who has reached
                                                                      the end of his contract, by a new employer established in
An action against the Commission of the European                      the same Member State, in another Member State of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                European Union or the European Economic Area, or in a
the European Communities on 17 July 1998 by the                       non-member country?
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, General
Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade
and Development Cooperation, and H. Gilliams, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins.
                                                                      References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera
                                                                      Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           31 March 1998 in the cases of Salvat Editores SA and
                                                                               Others and J. CompanÄ Calbuig and Others
                                                                                (Cases C-265/98 to C-272/98)
1. annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
                                                                                (98/C 278/52)
     1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994
     on the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far                European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
     as it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community          Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/29
31 March 1998, which were received at the Court                       Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Registry on 20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the                 European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
cases of Salvat Editores SA and J. CompanÄ Calbuig                                              (Case C-274/98)
(C-265/98), Salvat Editores SA and G. Caminati (C-266/
98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and R. Bogas CardenÄosa                                          (98/C 278/54)
(Case C-267/98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and M.
Casas MingueÂlez (C-268/98), Planeta CreÂdito SA and A.
Villar Castelao (C-269/98), Artel SA and P. López Aznar               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
(C-270/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. A. Serrano Garrido              before the Court of Justice on 17 July 1998 by the
(C-271/98), and Artel SA and F. Arencom Salazar (C-272/               Commission of the European Communities, represented
98).                                                                  by Eric Gippini Fournier and Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                      Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The grounds of the order for reference and the question
on which a ruling is sought by Juzgado de Primera
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, are similar to those in Joined            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (1).
                                                                      Ð declare that, by failing to establish action programmes
                                                                           pursuant to Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC
( ) See p. 21 of this Official Journal.
 1
                                                                           of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
                                                                           waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                           agricultural sources (1), the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                      Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Hans-Josef Schlebusch against Hauptzollamt Trier
                         (Case C-273/98)                              The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and of Article 5 of the EC Treaty means that Member
                           (98/C 278/53)                              States must adopt the measures necessary to give effect to
                                                                      the Directive before the end of the period appointed for
                                                                      that purpose. Since the initial designation of vulnerable
                                                                      zones was to be effected within two years after
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                notification of the Directive (Article 3(2)), the period for
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                drawing up the action programmes provided for in
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 14 May                 Article 5 expired in December 1995.
1998, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hans-Josef Schlebusch
                                                                      (1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 92,
against Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Trier on                  16.4.1993, p. 51.
the following question:
Is the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 857/84 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 1639/91 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that a milk
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by Klagenñvnet
producer is to be allocated a definitive special reference
                                                                      for Udbud, by an order of 15 July 1998 in the case
quantity even where, in the period laid down in that
                                                                      of Unitron Scandinavia A/S and 3-S A/S, Danske
provision, he did not use the special reference quantity
                                                                      Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v. Ministeriet for
provisionally allocated to him for a corresponding increase
                                                                                Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
in his milk production, but temporarily transferred to
another business that part of his milk quota corresponding                                      (Case C-275/98)
to the original reference quantity held by his business in                                       (98/C 278/55)
addition to the provisionally allocated special reference
quantity?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of Klagenñvnet for
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules
 1
    for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of      Udbud (Danish Procurement Review Board), which was
    Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products          received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for a
    sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13).                                preliminary ruling in the case of Unitron Scandinavia A/S
(2) OJ L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35.                                       and 3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v.
                                                                      Ministeriet for Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Ministry
                                                                      of Foodstuffs, Agriculture and Fisheries) on the following
                                                                      questions:


title: Case C-396/03 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2003 by Magnus Killinger against the order made on 8 July 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-186/03 Magnus Killinger v Federal Republic of Germany, Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/1

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2003 by Magnus Killinger against the order made on 8 July 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-186/03 Magnus Killinger v Federal Republic of Germany, Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-396/03 P)
   (2005/C 257/01)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the order of 8 July 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-186/03 Magnus Killinger v Federal Republic of Germany, Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2003 by Magnus Killinger, represented by T. Scheuernstuhl, Rechtsanwalt, Würzburger Straße, D-97440 Werneck.
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) made an order on 3 June 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the appellant to pay his own costs.


title: Case T-126/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Goris v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Interlocutory judgment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Goris v Commission
   (Case T-126/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 301/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Willem Goris (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 May 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it fixes his classification in step on recruitment in step 2 of Grade B4, fixes 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision was to have pecuniary effect and did not re-establish the applicant's career grade, and an application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint and, second, an application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by that decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The Commission shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-491/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien, Austria, lodged on 31 October 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turansky

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien, Austria, lodged on 31 October 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turansky
   (Case C-491/07)
   (2008/C 22/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien
   Party to the main proceedings
   Vladimir Turansky
   Question referred
   ‘Is the bar on a second prosecution for the same acts (ne bis in idem principle) contained in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 (1) to be interpreted as precluding the prosecution of a suspect in the Republic of Austria for the same acts in respect of which criminal proceedings in the Slovak Republic were discontinued after its accession to the European Union by means of a binding order of a police authority suspending the proceedings without further sanction taken after examination of the merits of the case?’

      (1)  OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.


title: Case T-438/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/26

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO)
   (Case T-438/07)
   (2008/C 37/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Francesco Import GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 13 September 2007 in Case R 1285/2006-2 and

               —

               order the Office to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: De Francesco Import GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SpagO’ for goods in class 33 — application No 2 320 844

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community, national and international word and figurative marks ‘SPA’, ‘SPA Citron’ and ‘SPA Orange’ for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal underestimated the reputation of SPA in the Benelux and did not take the following factors sufficiently into account:

               —

               the oral and visual similarities of the trade marks in question;

               —

               the fact that the use of the trade mark ‘SpagO’ for alcoholic beverages would be detrimental to the reputation of the mineral water ‘SPA’, which built its reputation on its high quality, purity and beneficial effects upon health;

               —

               the fact that the use of ‘SpagO’ for beverages would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the trade mark ‘SPA’ and its image of quality and purity.