title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Remail - Action for annulment - Partial rejection of a complaint)

text:
C 327/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            of 6 April 1995 and 14 August 1995, by which the
judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:                         Commission definitively rejected that part of the
                                                                    complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988 against
                                                                    the interception, pursuant to Article 25 of the Universal
1. Dismisses the action for annulment as unfounded;                 Postal Union Convention, by a number of public postal
                                                                    operators, of mail which had been the subject of remailing
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as           Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
    those of the Commission and La Poste;                           BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
                                                                    Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                                                                    1998, in which it:
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland and the Post Office to bear their
    own costs.                                                      1. Joins Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 for the purposes of
                                                                         the judgment;
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.
                                                                    2. Annuls the decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                         concerns commercial physical ABA remail;
                                                                    3. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 16 September 1998                            4. Orders the Commission to bear the applicant's costs in
                                                                         Case T-133/95;
in Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          5. Orders the applicant to bear the Commission's costs in
                                                                         Case T-204/95;
(Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
               Partial rejection of a complaint)
                         (98/C 327/34)                              6. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs in Cases
                                                                         T-133/95 and T-204/95.
               (Language of the case: English)                      (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995 and C 351, 30.12.1995.
In Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in
Geneva (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European                                           of 15 September 1998
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique
GonzaÂlez-Díaz and Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently              in Case T-3/96: Roland Haas and Others v Commission
Rosemary Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi, assisted by                                of the European Communities (1)
Nicholas Forwood QC), supported, in Cases T-133/95 and              (Officials Ð Proportion of remuneration transferred Ð
T-204/95, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                 Weighting Ð Adjustment of capital sum Ð Retroactivity)
Northern Ireland (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during
the oral procedure, also Nicholas Green QC), Deutsche                                       (98/C 327/35)
Post AG, represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt,
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and The                               (Language of the case: French)
Post Office, represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the
Supreme Court of England and Wales, and, during the
oral procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,              In Case T-3/96: Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt,
Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Siegfried Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil,
the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and,              officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-133/95, by La Poste, represented by HerveÂ                residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an              Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Ð applications for, in                    Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against
substance, the annulment of the Commission decisions                Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-239/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution — Articles 4(1) and (8) — Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources — Article 6(1) and (3) — Failure to adopt appropriate measures to prevent, abate and combat heavy and prolonged pollution of the Étang de Berre — Discharge authorisation)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-239/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution - Articles 4(1) and (8) - Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources - Article 6(1) and (3) - Failure to adopt appropriate measures to prevent, abate and combat heavy and prolonged pollution of the Étang de Berre - Discharge authorisation)
   (2004/C 300/41)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-239/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 4 June 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky) and French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by failing to take all appropriate measures to prevent, abate and combat heavy and prolonged pollution of the Étang de Berre, and

                           —

                           by failing to take due account of the requirements of Annex III to the Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources, signed at Athens on 17 May 1980 and approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983, by amending the authorisation for the discharge of substances covered by Annex II to the Protocol following the conclusion of the latter,
                           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 8 of the Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution, signed at Barcelona on 16 February 1976 and approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 77/585/EEC of 25 July 1977, under Article 6(1) and (3) of the Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from land-based sources, signed at Athens on 17 May 1980 and approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 83/101/EEC of 28 February 1983, and under Article 300(7) EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


No C 247/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
( f) the reasoning advanced by the Commission in support               legislative activities and application of Community law', in
       of its conclusions does not comply with the                     that it provides for the post to be filled at grade A 4/A 5 , in so
       Commission's obligations under Article 190 of the EC            far as this circumstance prevented him from applying,
       Treaty to state the reasons on which its decisions are          despite the fact that he has held that post for several
       based so as to enable the Court to exercise its powers of       years .
       judicial review, the parties to defend their rights and the
       Member States and other interested parties to ascertain         In the applicant's opinion, the post in question should not
       the circumstances in which the Commission has applied           have been advertised as an A 4/A 5 post since it has all the
       the Treaty .                                                    features for classification as an A 3 post, whether with
                                                                       regard to the tasks associated with the post or to the number
                                                                       of officials serving within the unit. From this the applicant
                                                                       concludes that the contested decision is vitiated by a
                                                                       manifest error in the assessment of the facts as well as by an
Action brought on 4 July 1996 by Ludwig Kramer against                 error of law .
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T- 104/96 )                            The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                       Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers,
                           ( 96/C 247/43 )                             arguing that the decision to advertise the post of head of unit
                                                                       B3 in DG XI as a post at grade A 4/A 5 was not taken in the
                  (Language of the case: French)                       interest of the service but rather with a view to preventing
                                                                       his application in favour of a candidate chosen on the basis
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       of his nationality and not on that of his ability and
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      experience within the relevant area .
Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1996
by Ludwig Kramer, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-209/95 ( )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/44 )
— annul the publication notice for the post of head of unit
     for unit XI . B. 3 as a post at grade A 4/A 5                                    (Language of the case: English)
     ( COM/111 /95 ),
— consequently annul the appointment of a grade A 5                    By order of 15 July 1996 , the President of the First Chamber
     candidate,                                                        ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities ordered the removal from the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       register of Case T-209/95 : Windstar Sail Cruises Limited,
                                                                       Wind Star Limited and Wind Spirit Limited v. Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       of the European Communities .
The applicant, a grade A 3 official , contests the vacancy
notice for the post of head of unit XI . B. 3 ' Legal affairs,         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-376/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali
   (Case C-376/12)
   2012/C 311/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20 EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included?

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 October 1995 in Case C-450/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Equal treatment of men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Article 2 (4) - Promotion - Equally qualified candidates of different sexes - Priority given to women)

text:
No C 315 /2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1491 /85 of          Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( Agents :
23 May 1985 laying down special measures in respect of               Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 151 , p. 15 ), of Council Regulation          application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or to
( EEC ) No 2194/85 of 25 July 1985 adopting general rules            communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
concerning special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 204 ,         administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
p. 1 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2537/89 of           second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990
8 August 1989 laying down detailed rules for the                     on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
application of the special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1989         provisions relating to direct life insurance, laying down
L 245 , p. 8 ), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EEC )          provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to
No 150/90 of 19 January 1990 ( OJ 1 990 L 18 , p. 10 ) — the         provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC ( OJ
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                1 990 L 330 , p. 50 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.             its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; C. O.          Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch , President of the Second
Lenz, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the          Chamber acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1995 , the                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. L. Murray,
operative part of which is as follows :                              and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ;
                                                                     R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1 995 , in
                                                                     which it :
1 . Examination of the first four questions referred for a
     preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of
     affecting the validity of Article 29a of Commission             1 . Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
     Regulation No 2537/89 of 8 August 1989 laying down                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     detailed rules for the application of the special measures           administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     for soya beans, as amended by Commission Regulation                  second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November
     (EEC) No 150/90.                                                     1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions relating to direct life
2 . Article 6 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2537/89, as                      insurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the
     amended, must be understood as meaning that soya                     effective exercise of freedom to provide services and
     producers must notify the competent agency of any                    amending Directive 79/267/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain
     change in the areas indicated in the cultivation contract,           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     in particular any reduction in those areas, even if it is            Treaty;
     attributable to natural occurrences, such as heavy
     rainfall, where such a change occurs before the lodging
                                                                     2 . Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     of the contract, as well as all changes which occur after
     lodging of the cultivation contract and which ,
     individually or collectively, involve more than 10% of          (•) O J No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
     the areas indicated in the cultivation contract and more
     than one hectare .
(M Ol No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 October 1995
                                                                     in Case C-450/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   Hansestadt Bremen (')
                      of 12 October 1995                              (Equal treatment of men and women — Directive
                                                                      76/207/EEC — Article 2 (4) — Promotion — Equally
in    Case    C-242/94 :     Commission     of the    European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')                      qualified candidates of different sexes — Priority given to
                                                                                women)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/619/EEC —                                        ( 95/C 315/04 )
                      Failure to transpose)
                          ( 95/C 315/03 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-450/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 In   Case     C-242/94 :    Commission     of  the   European        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
 Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Francisco            Labour Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 315/3
pending before that court between Eckhard Kalanke and                 Communities ( Agents : E. de March and T. van Rijn ) —
Freie Hansestadt Bremen , supported by Heike Glifimann —              application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
on the interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council         ( EEC ) No 2920/93 of 22 October 1993 fixing the uniform
Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                        reduction coefficient for determining the quantities of
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men            bananas to be allocated to each operator in Categories A and
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                 B in the context of the tariff quota for the second half of
training and promotion , and working conditions ( OJ 1976             1993 ( OJ 1993 L 264 , p. 40 ) — the Court, composed of:
L 39 , p. 40 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez              G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.
Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.         Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Puissochet and G. Flirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.           Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P.          de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray and
J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and J. L. Murray,            L. Sevon , Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H. von
Judges ; G. Tesauro , Advocate-General ; H. A. Ruhl ,                 Holstein , Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment           judgment on 17 October 1995 , in which it :
on 17 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                      1 . Dismisses the action ;
Article 2 (\) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of             2 . Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                     costs .
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions precludes national rules such as those in
the present case which , where candidates of different sexes          (') O J No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified,
automatically give priority to women in sectors where they
are under-represented, under-representation being deemed
to exist when women do not make up at least halfofthe staff
in the individual pay brackets in the relevant personnel
group or in the function levels provided for in the
organization chart.
(') O J No C 27 , 28 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 October 1995
                                                                      in Case C-44/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Divisional Court of the Queen 's Bench Division of the High
                                                                      Court of Justice ): The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture,
                                                                      Fisheries and Food, ex-parte National Federation of
                                                                      Fishermen 's Organizations and Others , Federation of
                                                                            Highlands and Islands Fishermen and Others (')
                                                                       (Common fisheries policy — Multiannual guidance
                                                                       programmes — Limitation of the number of days at sea)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (9 SIC 315 /06 )
                       of 17 October 1995
in Case C-478/93 : Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
       Commission of the European Communities (')                                    (Language of the case: English)
 (Bananas — Import system — Category A and Category B
                              operators)                              In Case C-44/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
                           ( 95/C 315/05 )                            the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen 's
                                                                       Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ( United
                                                                      Kingdom ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        pending before that court between The Queen and the
                                                                       Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , ex-parte
                                                                      National Federation of Fishermen 's Organizations and
                                                                       Others , Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen and
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be         Others on the interpretaton of Articles 6 , 34 , 39 and 40 ( 3 )
          published in the European Court Reports)                     of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3759/92 of
                                                                       17 December 1992 on the common organization of the
                                                                       market in fishery and aquaculture products ( OJ 1992 L 388 ,
 In Case C-478/93 : Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents : A.           p. 1 ), Council Regulation ( FTC ) No 3760/92 of
 Bos and f . W. de Zwaan ) v. Commission of the European               20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for


title: Case C-185/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Money order service — Directive 97/67/EC — Scope — National legislation granting an exclusive right to provide a money order service — State aid — Economic activity — Services of general economic interest)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut
   (Case C-185/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Money order service - Directive 97/67/EC - Scope - National legislation granting an exclusive right to provide a money order service - State aid - Economic activity - Services of general economic interest))
   (2015/C 414/05)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants:‘EasyPay’ AD, ‘Finance Engineering’ AD

      Defendants: Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a money order service by which the sender, in this case the State, transfers sums of money to a beneficiary through the postal operator entrusted with providing the universal postal service does not fall within the scope of that directive.

               2.

               Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, if the activity of money order operations enabling the payment of retirement pensions constitutes an economic activity, the grant by a Member State of an exclusive right to pay retirement pensions by money order to an undertaking such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not, however, caught by that provision, in so far as that service constitutes a service of general economic interest, the remuneration for which represents compensation for the services carried out by that undertaking to discharge its public service obligation.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales by decision of that court of 5 April 1995 in the case of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés (Case C-120/95)

text:
No C 137/ 14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
 1 . Is an oral agreement on the place of performance                   References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
     ( Brussels Convention, Article 5 ) to be recognized even if        Circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccate di Tivoli e di
     it is not intended to fix the place at which the person            Castelnuovo — by orders of those courts of February and
     liable has to perform the obligations incumbent on him,            March 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before them
     but is intended solely to establish — informally — that            against Giuseppe Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo
     the courts for a particular place are to have jurisdiction                                         Zappone
     (a so-called 'abstract' agreement on the place of                          ( Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 )
     performance )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/30 )
2 . In the event that the Court of Justice should answer
     question 1 in the negative :                                       References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Pretura
     ( a ) Can an agreement conferring jurisdiction in                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccate di Tivoli e di
           international trade or commerce in accordance
                                                                        Castelnuovo ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli
           with the third hypothesis mentioned in the second            and Castelnuovo Divisions ) which were received at the
           sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the         Court Registry on 3 , 6 , 10 April 1995 respectively, for a
           1978 version of the Brussels Convention also be
                                                                        preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe
           concluded by one party's not contradicting a                 Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo Zappone on the
           commercial letter of confirmation containing a               following questions :
           pre-printed reference to the courts of the
           consignors ' place of business having sole                   1 . What is the legal effect of the Italian Republic 's failure to
           jurisdiction or must there have been in every case               bring into force the necessary measures to implement
           prior consensus with regard to the content of the                Council Directive 91/156/EEC ( l ), amending Directive
           letter of confirmation ?                                         75/442/EEC within the prescribed time limit ?
     ( b ) Is it sufficient in order for there to be an agreement       2 . In particular, may the existence of criminal penalties,
           conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of the                and in particular those provided for in Articles 10 and
           aforesaid provision if the invoices sent by one party            25 ( Case C-75/95 ) and Article 25 et seq. ( Case C-58/95 )
           all contain a reference to the courts of the carrier 's
                                                                            of Presidential Decree No 915 /82 for failure to observe
           place of business having sole jurisdiction and to the            the Italian rules, be considered to conflict with
           conditions of the bill of lading used by the carrier             Community legislation where it seeks to ensure uniform
           which also stipulate the courts of the same place as             treatment, from the point of view of penalties as well, for
           having jurisdiction, and the other party invariably              operators in the Single Market.
           paid the invoices without objecting, or is prior
           consensus also required in this respect ?                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio, Athens , by judgment of that court of 29 March              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Arbitral
          1990 in the case of Astir AE v. Greek State
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales by decision of that court of 5 April
                          ( Case C-109/95 )                             1995 in the case of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des
                            ( 95/C 137/29 )                                                      Employés Privés
                                                                                ( Case C-120/95 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 137/31 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 29 March 1990, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Arbitral
on 3 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Astir
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales ( Arbitral Council of Social
AE v. Greek State pending before it on the following
                                                                        Insurance ) of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
question :
                                                                        Registry on 7 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
On a proper construction of Article 10 ( 4 ) of Commission              of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employes Prives
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2730/79 , in conjunction with the                 ( Health Insurance Fund for Employees in the Private Sector )
provisions of Articles 20 and 21 thereof, is an exporter of an          on the following question :
agricultural product, in this case wheat flour, entitled to a
refund when the exported product after leaving the                      Is Article 60 of the Luxembourg Social Insurance Code,
geographical territory of the Community has perished in                 under which a social security institution of Member State A
transit as a result of force majeure and where for that                refuses to refund to an insured person, who is a national of
product the same amount of refund was fixed for all                    Member State A, the cost of spectacles with corrective
non-member countries except the Soviet Union for which as               lenses, prescribed by a doctor established in Member State A
regards the product mentioned above no amount of refund                 but purchased from an optician established in Member State
was fixed ?                                                             B, on the ground that all medical treatment outside Member
                                                                        State A must be authorized in advance by the above social
                                                                        security institution, compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 137/ 15
the EC Treaty in so far as it penalizes in general the                            Removal from the register of Case C-4 15/92 ( )
importation by private individuals of medicaments or, as in                                            ( 95/C 137/33 )
this case , spectacles from other Member States ?
                                                                           By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-415/92 : Italian Republic
                                                                           v. Commission of the European Communities .
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                           ( t ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 .
                              ( Case C-125/95 )
                                ( 95/C 137/32 )
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice on 11 April 1995 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Sergio de Carvalho, Legal                         Removal from the register of Case C-397/93 ( )
Advisers , acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                             ( 95/C 137/34 )
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , of its Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           By order of 16 February 1995 the President of the Court of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-397/93 ( reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
     period all the measures necessary to implement in                     Genova ): Voltri Terminal Europa SpA v. Giorgio Donati
     full :                                                                and Others .
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC (') of 28 January 1991                 (>) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
          concerning the animal health conditions governing
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
          products,
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
           and the placing on the market of live bivalve
           molluscs ,                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-52/94 ( ! )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/35 )
     — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC ( i ) of 22 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
          and the placing on the market of fishery products ,              By order of 16 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
           and                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-52/94 : Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC ( 4 ) of 16 June 1992                   v. Commission of the European Communities .
           laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels in           (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
           accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive
           91 /493 /EEC ,
— the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its
     obligations under the Treaty,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-89/94 (')
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                     ( 95/C 137/36 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-79/95 . The period prescribed for transposing the                   By order of 8 March 1995 the President of the Court of
Directives expired on 1 January 1993 .                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-89/94 : Commission of the
(')  OJ  No    L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                           European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(2)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(;)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .                            (M OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ  No    L 187, 7. 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .


title: Case C-315/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — EAFRD financing — Rural development support — Natura 2000 payments — Eligibility limited to private owners — Forest area partially owned by the State)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/4

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter
   (Case C-315/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - EAFRD financing - Rural development support - Natura 2000 payments - Eligibility limited to private owners - Forest area partially owned by the State))
   (2017/C 161/05)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: József Lingurár

      Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first sentence of Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a forest area eligible for Natura 2000 support is owned in part by the State and in part by a private owner, account must be taken of the ratio of the size of the part owned by the State to the size of the part owned by that private owner in calculating the amount of support to be paid to the latter.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case C-519/15 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by Trafilerie Meridionali SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in Case T-422/10

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/23

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by Trafilerie Meridionali SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in Case T-422/10
   (Case C-519/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA (represented by: P. Ferrari and G.M.T. Lamicela, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejects the plea according to which Club Europa cannot be imputed to Trame (even) for the period between 9 October 2000 and 19 September 2002, and also the part of the judgment under appeal concerning the fine imposed on the appellant (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal), and therefore uphold the form of order sought at first instance before the General Court, also in respect of the fine; in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in respect of the above parts and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the point in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejects the plea according to which Trame should also be granted a fine reduction as a result of an inability to pay pursuant to the principle of equal treatment, and also the part of the judgment under appeal concerning the fine imposed on the appellant (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal), and therefore uphold the form of order sought at first instance before the General Court, also in respect of the fine; in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in respect of the above parts and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the point in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in the part concerning the calculation of the fine imposed on Trame (paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal), replacing it with its own decision in that respect; in the alternative, set aside the judgment in that part and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the point in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders Trame to pay its own costs relating to the main proceedings at first instance in Case T-422/10 (paragraph 5 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal), and order the Commission to pay those costs, or at least part thereof;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

               —

               declare that the General Court failed in its duty to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the dispute brought before it by the appellant in Case T-422/10, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               adopt any other measure that it deems appropriate.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                  First ground of appeal: the imputation of Club Europa to Trame. Distortion of the evidence. Manifestly unreasonable reading and evaluation of that evidence.
               The General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea that the Club Europa could not be imputed to Trame (even) for the period between 9 October 2000 and 19 September 2002, by reason of a distortion of the evidence, or by reason of a manifestly unreasonable reading and evaluation of it. In the light of this, the judgment under appeal is also vitiated in the part concerning the fine imposed on the appellant.

               2.

                  Second ground of appeal: the failure to grant Trame a fine reduction as a result of an inability to pay. Failure to state reasons. Breach of Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Breach of Article 117 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
               The General Court erred in law by failing to explain adequately, or even by implication, the reasons why it rejected the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment by the Commission when granting relief stemming from an inability to pay, with the result that the appellant was unable to know the reasons on which the judgment under appeal was based and the Court of Justice also prevented from having sufficient information in order to carry out its review. From another point of view, the General Court failed to take into account factors of crucial importance for the purpose of resolving this point. In the light of this, the judgment under appeal is also vitiated in the part concerning the fine imposed on the appellant.

               3.

                  Third ground of appeal: the methodology used by the General Court in the redetermination of the fine. Failure to state reasons. Breach of Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Breach of Article 117 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
               The General Court erred in law by failing to provide an adequate explanation of its methodology in calculating the fine in the context of the redetermination of the penalty to be imposed on Trame and, in particular, of the ‘weight’ attributed to each of the different factors relevant in that context. That failure makes it impossible, inter alia, to establish whether the General Court, when calculating the fine, acted in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

               4.

                  Fourth ground of appeal: concerning the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance before the General Court.
               If one or both of the grounds set out in sections A and B of the appeal is upheld, this must also have an impact on the General Court’s conclusion in paragraphs 411 and 412 of the judgment under appeal, according to which each party is required to bear its own costs. Accordingly, the judgment must also be set aside in so far as it also requires the appellant to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings at first instance in Case T-422/10, and the Commission must be ordered to pay those costs, or at least part thereof.

               5.

                  Fifth ground of appeal: the right to judicial protection within a reasonable time. Breach of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Trame claims that the General Court failed to comply with its obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the dispute brought before it by the appellant in Case T-422/10, and that it consequently breached the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2001 in Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs v European Parliament (Officials — Promotion by way of inter-institutional transfer — Annulment by the Court of First Instance — Compliance with the annulment — Decision of the Parliament to withdraw the earlier transfer of the official — Action for annulment — Manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
C 212/24               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.7.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
                          of 3 May 2001                                     of a decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant
                                                                            the installation allowance and the daily substance allowances
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
in Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (1)                   P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                            H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 March 2001, the
(Officials — Re-establishment of career — Examination                       operative part of which is as follows:
of comparative merits — Criteria — Principle of equal
                             treatment)                                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                         (2001/C 212/44)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by E. Boigelot,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v European
Parliament (Agents: H. von Herzen and D. Moore) — appli-
cation for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June
1999 re-establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as it
promotes him to grade A4 with effect from 1 January 1998                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rather than 1 January 1997 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, and
V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen,                                               of 20 March 2001
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3 May 2001, in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs v European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 9 June 1999 re-                                          Parliament (1)
      establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as that decision
      specifies 1 January 1998 as the date on which his promotion           (Officials — Promotion by way of inter-institutional transfer
      to grade A4 is to take effect;                                        — Annulment by the Court of First Instance — Compliance
2.    Orders the defendant to pay all the costs.                            with the annulment — Decision of the Parliament to
                                                                            withdraw the earlier transfer of the official — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Manifestly unfounded in law)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
                                                                            lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                        of 30 March 2001                                    European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore)
                                                                            — application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament
in Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares v Commission of the                     of 15 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
                    European Communities (1)                                Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
                                                                            and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            20 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed.
                         (2001/C 212/45)                                    2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.
In Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Louis Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service


title: Case C-344/06 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2006 by J. C. Blom against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/13

         Appeal brought on 8 August 2006 by J. C. Blom against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-344/06 P)
   (2006/C 261/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant): J. C. Blom (represented by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S. C. H. Molin, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May in Case T-87/94, as rectified by the Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2006 (T-87/94 REC) and, ruling anew, uphold the appellant's claim or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;

               —

               order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   First plea: the Court of First Instance infringed its obligation to state reasons by disregarding material parts of Mr Blom's pleadings at first instance.
   Second plea: The Court wrongly failed to appreciate that the Institutions have expressly and unconditionally recognised the Community's liability towards producers in the position of Mr Blom. The Court also wrongly held that he cannot derive any right from the position adopted by the Institutions, extra-judicially and before the courts, for the simple reason that he did not accept the quantity under Regulation No 2187/93. (1)

   The judgment under appeal should be set aside because the Court of First Instance made a serious misappraisal of the legitimate expectations which the Institutions created in the case of the 83-ers. As no further examination of the facts is called for, the Court of Justice can itself dispose of the case in the appeal. Alternatively, the case should be referred back to the Court of First Instance.
   Third plea: The Court of First Instance applied an incorrect test for assessing the causal link between the loss suffered by Mr Blom and the Community's unlawful conduct.
   The Court disregarded the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by failing to infer from Mr Blom's receipt of a specific reference quantity that, subject to proof to the contrary, he intended to resume production after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking. The Court's finding that he did not have that intention is also incomprehensible, at any rate, insufficiently reasoned, and incorrectly applies the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6).


title: Case C-93/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 160/6                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.6.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (5); the period for
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.                                                     (Case C-93/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/13)
( 1) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
( 3) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 4) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.                                          the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
( 5) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission                               period all the measures needed to comply fully with
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                              Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
                                 Republic                                       Directives 81/602/EEC (2) and 88/299/EEC (3), the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
                             (Case C-92/99)
                                                                          — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                            (1999/C 160/12)
                                                                          Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (4); the period for
Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 1997.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    ( 2) OJ L 222 , 7.8.1981, p. 32.
                                                                          ( 3) OJ L 128, 21.5.1988, p. 36.
                                                                          ( 4) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures needed to comply fully with
      Council Directive 96/23/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
      Directives 85/358/EEC (2) and 86/469/EEC (3) and
      Decisions 89/187/EEC(4) and 91/664/EEC (5), the Portu-
      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         beamt by order of that tribunal of 5 March 1999 in the
                                                                          review procedure of ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesmi-
                                                                                nisterium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                (Case C-94/99)
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (6); the period for                                              (1999/C 160/14)
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
( 2) OJ L 191, 23.7.1985, p. 46.                                          (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 5 March 1999, which
( 3) OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36.                                          was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
( 4) OJ L 66, 10.3.1989, p. 37.                                           preliminary ruling in the review procedure of ARGE Gewässer-
( 5) OJ L 368, 31.12.1991, p. 17.                                         schutz v. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft on
( 6) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the following questions:
                                                                          I.    Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit to an
                                                                                award procedure bodies which receive subsidies of any


title: Case C-340/03: Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/13
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of Austria                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-340/03)                                                            (Case C-341/03)
                         (2003/C 226/23)                                                           (2003/C 226/24)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-                2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by J.-C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana, members of              sented by H. Michard, of its Legal Service.
the legal service of the Commission of the European
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          a)   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.   find that, by failing fully and correctly to implement the                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     following provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of                   Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguard-
     12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and                    ing the supplementary pension rights of employed and
     in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in                  self-employed persons moving within the Community (1),
     agriculture (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its         and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
     obligations under the Treaty:                                             thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
                                                                               tions under that directive;
     a)   the definition contained in Article 2(a) of the
          Directive, in the Bundesland Steiermark (exceptions             b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
          for small sewage treatment plants),
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     b)    Article 6(b) concerning the information to be regu-
           larly provided to users under Annex II A, in Kärnten,          1.   Under the third paragraph of Article 249 (3) EC, directives
                                                                               are binding, on the Member States as to the result to be
     c)   Article 9 in conjunction with Annexes II A, II B and                 achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of
          II C in Vorarlberg and in conjunction with Annex II C                form and methods.
          in Kärnten and in Steiermark, and
                                                                          2.   In this case, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 98/49/EC of
     d)    the requirement to keep a record in accordance with                 29 June 1998 provides that Member States are to bring
           Article 10 in Kärnten (paragraph 1(a) as regards the                into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
           exemption of small installations, for which the                     sions necessary to comply with the directive not later than
           Directive does not provide), in Steiermark                          36 months following the date of its entry into force. The
           (paragraph 1(b) and (c) as regards the composition                  directive was brought into force on the day of its publica-
           and properties of the sludge and the type of treat-                 tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           ment) and Vorarlberg (paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as                (25 July 1998) and should therefore have been transposed
           regards quantities of sludge, the composition and                   into national law by 27 January 2001. Under Article 10(2)
           properties of the sludge and the type of treatment),                of the directive Member States were to inform the
                                                                               Commission of the measures of transposition adopted by
2.   order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the                     25 January 2002.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.
The Austrian Republic was to implement Directive 86/278/EEC
by the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 January
1995.
                                                                          Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of
Although that time-limit has passed, certain provisions of that                Spain against the Council of the European Union
directive have not been fully and correctly implemented in the
Bundesländer of Kärnten, Steiermark and Vorarlberg.                                                 (Case C-342/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/25)
(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-298/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v deutsche internet versicherung AG (Directive 2000/31/EC — Article 5(1)(c) — Electronic commerce — Internet service provider — Electronic mail)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v deutsche internet versicherung AG
   (Case C-298/07) (1)

   (Directive 2000/31/EC - Article 5(1)(c) - Electronic commerce - Internet service provider - Electronic mail)
   (2008/C 313/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

      Defendant: deutsche internet versicherung AG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Service provider offering such services exclusively via the internet by indicating on his website only his electronic mail address and providing recipients with a field in which to ask written questions — Whether this service provider also has to provide a telephone number
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 5(1)(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider is required to supply to recipients of the service, before the conclusion of a contract with them, in addition to its electronic mail address, other information which allows the service provider to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner. That information does not necessarily have to be a telephone number. That information may be in the form of an electronic enquiry template through which the recipients of the service can contact the service provider via the internet, to whom the service provider replies by electronic mail except in situations where a recipient of the service, who, after contacting the service provider electronically, finds himself without access to the electronic network, requests the latter to provide access to another, non-electronic, means of communication.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case T-40/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for industrial plastic sacks — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability — Principal of legal certainty)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
   (Case T-40/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability - Principal of legal certainty)
   2010/C 301/33
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and O. Larsson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and V. Bottka, subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for industrial plastic sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) in so far as it relates to Trioplast Industrier AB;

               2.

               Fixes at EUR 2.73 million the amount ascribed to Trioplast Industrier, on the basis of which its share of the successive parent companies’ joint and several liability is to be established for payment of the fine imposed on Trioplast Wittenheim SA;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders Trioplast Industrier to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Trioplast Industrier.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-319/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/60

         Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission
   (Case T-319/15)
   (2015/C 302/75)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 on the State aid scheme SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany, Support for renewable electricity and cap on the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicant claims that the cap on the EEG-surcharge does not constitute aid, since public funds were neither granted nor waived. The cap on the EEG-surcharge is also not selective. Furthermore, it does not distort competition and does not adversely affect trade within the internal market.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU
               Even if, contrary to the view of the applicant, the cap does constitute aid, the applicant claims that, in any event, the defendant cannot order restitution pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU because the cap on the EEG-surcharge is not new aid. It is not new since the defendant had already, in 2002, approved the earlier legislation, the terms of which were identical as far as the main aspects are concerned.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
               The applicant also claims that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of legitimate expectations. The defendant, it submits, was not entitled to examine the facts of the case on the basis of its guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy for the period 2014-2020, which were not published until 28 June 2014. Rather, it should have applied the guidelines that had been published in 2008. On the basis of the 2008 criteria, the defendant could not have come to any conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty
               Lastly, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU in so far as it adopted the contested decision in a proceeding concerning new aid. Since the defendant had approved the earlier legislation relating to EEG 2012, it ought to have taken a decision in a proceeding concerning existing aid, and not in a proceeding concerning new aid.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — ECSC Treaty — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Alloy surcharge — Reduction of the fine — Cooperation in the administrative procedure — Attributability of the infringement — Rights of the defence)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeals - ECSC Treaty - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Alloy surcharge - Reduction of the fine - Cooperation in the administrative procedure - Attributability of the infringement - Rights of the defence)
   (2005/C 217/05)
   Languages of the case: German and Italian
   In Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: two appeals under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 28 February 2002 by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, formerly Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH (Lawyer: M. Klusmann), and by ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA, formerly Acciai speciali Terni SpA (Lawyers: A. Giardina and G. Di Tommaso), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan, assisted by H.-J. Freund, and A. Whelan and V. Superti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-319/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Liège): Jules Dethier Équipment SA v. Jules Dassy and Sovam SPRL, in liquidation (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - Transfer of an undertaking being wound up voluntarily or by the court - Power of the transferor and transferee to dismiss employees for economic, technical or organisational reasons - Employees dismissed shortly before the transfer and not taken on by the transferee)

text:
C 151/2               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.5.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     transferee may claim, as against the transferee, that
                                                                         their dismissal was unlawful.
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 12 March 1998                              (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
in Case C-319/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail, LieÁge): Jules Dethier EÂquipment SA v.
       Jules Dassy and Sovam SPRL, in liquidation (1)
(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers
of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses Ð
Transfer of an undertaking being wound up voluntarily or                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
by the court Ð Power of the transferor and transferee to                                   (Fifth Chamber)
dismiss     employees      for   economic,     technical    or
organisational reasons Ð Employees dismissed shortly                                      of 12 March 1998
   before the transfer and not taken on by the transferee)
                                                                    in    Case C-344/96: Commission of the European
                         (98/C 151/02)                                     Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                                                                    Directives 93/62/EEC, 93/63/EEC, 93/64/EEC, 93/78/
                (Language of the case: French)                                     EEC, 93/79/EEC and 94/3/EC)
                                                                                (98/C 151/03)
                                                                                (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-319/94: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail (Higher
Labour Court), LieÁge, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                    In Case C-344/96: Commission of the European
the proceedings pending before that court between, first,
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) v. Federal
Jules Dethier EÂquipment SA and, secondly, Jules Dassy
                                                                    Republic of Germany (Agent: Ernst Röder) Ð application
and Sovam SPRL, in liquidation Ð on the interpretation
                                                                    for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the
of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on
                                                                    periods prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                    provisions needed to comply with:
relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
businesses (OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                    Ð Commission Directive 93/62/EEC of 5 July 1993
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
                                                                         setting out the implementing measures concerning the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray,
                                                                         supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                         establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/33/
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
                                                                         EEC on the marketing of vegetable propagating and
which it has ruled:
                                                                         planting material, other than seed (OJ L 250,
                                                                         7.10.1993, p. 29),
1. On a proper construction of Article 1(1) of Council
    Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the                 Ð Commission Directive 93/63/EEC of 5 July 1993
    approximation of the laws of the Member States                       setting out the implementing measures concerning the
    relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the             supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
    event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts              establishments pursuant to Council Directive 91/682/
    of businesses, that Directive applies in the event of the            EEC on the marketing of ornamental plant
    transfer of an undertaking which is being wound up                   propagating material and ornamental plants (OJ L 250,
    by the court if the undertaking continues to trade.                  7.10.1993, p. 31),
                                                                    Ð Commission Directive 93/64/EEC of 5 July 1993
2. On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Directive                 setting out the implementing measures concerning the
    77/187, both the transferor and the transferee may                   supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
    dismiss employees for economic, technical or                         establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/34/
    organisational      reasons.    Employees      unlawfully            EEC on the marketing of fruit plant propagating
    dismissed by the transferor shortly before the                       material and fruit plants intended for fruit production
    undertaking is transferred and not taken on by the                   (OJ L 250, 7.10.1993, p. 33),


title: Case C-534/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group and Others

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group and Others
   (Case C-534/13)
   2013/C 359/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)

      Respondents: Fipa Group srl, Ivan srl, TWS Automation srl

      Question referred

   Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

      (1)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).


title: Case T-268/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/55

         Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission
   (Case T-268/06)
   (2006/C 294/113)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies A.E. (Olympic Airways Services S.A.) (represented by: P. Anestis, T. Soames, G. Goeteyn, S. Mavrogenis, M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, lawyers,)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Articles 230 EC and 231 EC, the imposition of a maximum amount of DR 668 783 057 under Article 1 of Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006 in respect of compensation to which the applicant is lawfully entitled for the period 11 to 14 September 2001;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the contested decision, according to which the compensation paid to the applicant is not compatible with the common market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application is directed against Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006, concerning a State aid scheme C-39/2003 (ex NN 119/02) put into effect by Greece in favour of the airline industry to compensate for losses suffered between 11 and 14 September 2001.
   First, the applicant maintains that the Commission, in concluding that the financial aid granted to make good the damage which arose after 14 September 2001 is not directly linked to the closure of the airspace of the United States because of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and consequently constitutes State aid that is incompatible with the common market, clearly committed an error of assessment of the factual circumstances and thus infringed Article 87(2)(b) EC.
   In conclusion, the applicant alleges that the complete lack of reasons for the rejection of the compensation in question constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement which renders the decision invalid.