title: Case C-200/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appellate Authority, by order of that court dated 27 May 2002, in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian Catherine Zhu against Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
C 180/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
Action brought on 23 May 2002 by Commission of                           the overall reduction of 75 % to which the Federal Republic
the European Communities against Federal Republic of                     refers with regard to the nitrogen load must have been
                            Germany                                      measured according to the monitoring methods applied in
                                                                         Germany. That level of nitrogen reduction cannot therefore
                                                                         substantiate the equivalence of monitoring method applied in
                        (Case C-191/02)                                  Germany.
                        (2002/C 180/20)                                  (1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1971, p. 40. Annex I of the Directive was
                                                                             amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February
                                                                             1998, OJ L 67 of 7.3.98, p. 29.
                                                                         (2) Verordnung über Anforderungen an das Einleiten von Abwasser
                                                                             in Gewässer of 21 March 1991, BGBl. 1997 I-566, as amended
                                                                             by the notice of 20.9.2001, BGBl. 2001 I-2240.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 May 2002 by Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal advisor
of the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                         Appellate Authority, by order of that court dated 27 May
                                                                         2002, in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Catherine Zhu against Secretary of State for the Home
                                                                                Department
1.    Declare that, by failing to ensure equivalence of the
      monitoring methods in accordance with Annex I Part D.1                                       (Case C-200/02)
      of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
      concerning urban waste water treatment, the Federal
                                                                                (2002/C 180/21)
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the directive and in particular under Article 15(1)
      thereof.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs             European Communities by an order of the Immigration
      of the proceedings.                                                Appellate Authority dated 27 May 2002, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 30 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian Catherine Zhu
                                                                         against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the
                                                                         following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         1.    On the facts of the present case, does Article 1 of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/148/EEC (1) or in the alternative of Article 1
                                                                               of Council Directive 90/364/EEC(2):
The application of the monitoring methods used in Germany
(‘2-hours-mixed sample’ and ‘qualified random sample’) (2)                     a)    confer the right on the First Appellant, who is a
instead of the methods required by the directive in Annex I                          minor and a citizen of the Union, to enter and reside
part D, numbers 2, 3 and 4, has the result that the limits laid                      in the host Member State?
down by the Directive can be exceeded without objection. This
is proved by the results of a study commissioned by the                        b)    and if so, does it consequently confer the right on
Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Office) in 1996:
                                                                                the Second Appellant, a third country national who
‘Expert opinion as to the equivalence of the requirements of                         is the First Appellant’s mother and primary carer, to
the Framework Waste Water Regulations and the EU Directive                           reside with the First Appellant (i) as her dependent
as regards the discharge concentration of urban waste water
                                                                                relative, or (ii) because she lived with the First
treatment plants and the degree of nitrogen elimination’.                            Appellant in her country of origin, or (iii) on any
                                                                                other special basis?
The Commission rejects the objection that, on account of                 2.    If and to the extent that the First Appellant is not a
Article 5(4) of the directive, it is not necessary to appraise the             ‘national of a member state’ for purposes of exercising
equivalence of the monitoring methods for individual plants.                   Community Rights pursuant to Council Directive 73/
Article 5 governs an area different from Article 15 and Annex I                148/EEC or Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC,
part D. Article 5 governs quality requirements, exceptions from                what then are the relevant criteria for identifying whether
which are admitted subject to a quite specific requirement.                    a child, who is a citizen of the Union, is a national of a
Article 15 and Annex I part D govern monitoring methods by                     member state for purposes of exercising Community
which compliance with limits is reviewed. It is quite clear that               rights?
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/13
3.    In the circumstances of the present case, does the receipt           of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      of child care by the First Appellant constitute services for         (Administrative Court) dated 28 March 2002, which was
      purposes of Council Directive 73/148/EEC?                            received at the Court Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
                                                                           Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Ex parte:
4.    In the circumstances of the present case, is the First
                                                                           Delena Wells, on the following questions:
      Appellant precluded from residing in the host state
      pursuant to Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC
      because her resources are provided exclusively by her
      third country national parent who accompanies her?
                                                                           (a)   Whether an approval of a new set of conditions on an
5.    On the special facts of this case does Article 18(1) EC                    existing permission granted by an Interim Development
      give the First Appellant the right to enter and reside in                  Order (‘old mining permission’) pursuant to section 22
      the host member state even when she does not qualify                       and Schedule 2 of the Planning and Compensation Act
      for residence in the host state under any other provision                  1991 is a ‘development consent’ for the purposes of the
      of EU law?                                                                 EIA Directive (1)?
6.    If so, does the Second Appellant consequently enjoy the
      right to remain with the First Appellant, during that time
      in the host state?                                                   (b) Whether, following the approval of a new scheme of
                                                                                conditions on an IDO ‘old mining permission’ under the
                                                                                Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the approval of
7.    In this context, what is the effect of the principle of                    further matters required under the new scheme of
      respect for fundamental human rights under Community                       conditions is itself capable of being a ‘development
      law claimed by the Appellants, in particular where the                     consent’ for the purposes of the EIA Directive?
      Appellants rely on Article 8 ECHR that everyone has the
      right to respect for his private and family life and his
      home in conjunction with Art 14 ECHR given that the
      First Appellant cannot live in China with the Second
      Appellant and her father and brother?                                (c)   If the answer to (a) is ‘yes’ but (b) is ‘no’, is the member
                                                                                state nevertheless under a continuing duty to remedy its
                                                                                failure to require EIA, and if so, how?
(1) Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition
    of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
    for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and
    the provision of services, OJ L 172, 28.6.1973, p. 14.
(2) Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of           (d) Whether (i) it is open to individual citizens to challenge
    residence. OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                       the state’s failure to require EIA, or whether (ii) that may
                                                                                be prohibited under the limitations imposed by the Court
                                                                                on the doctrine of direct effect e.g. by ‘horizontal direct
                                                                                effect’ or by the imposition of burdens or obligations on
                                                                                individuals by an emanation of the state?
                                                                           (e)   If the answer to (d)(ii) is ‘yes’ what are the limits of such
                                                                                prohibitions on direct effect in the present circumstances
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                          and what steps may the UK lawfully take consistently
Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division                              with the EIA Directive?
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
28 March 2002, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
of State for Transport, Local Government and the
                 Regions, Ex parte: Delena Wells
                          (Case C-201/02)                                  (1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                               of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                               environment. OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                          (2002/C 180/22)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Case T-195/00: Travelex Global and Financial Services Ltd and Interpayment Services Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Official euro symbol)

text:
C 135/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those of the            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000 and C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA and Société de gestion
                                                                           de restauration routière SA (SG2R) v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                           declaring a merger compatible with the common market —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Petroleum sector — Commitments — Decision refusing
                                                                           approval of transferees — Inadmissibility — Definitive
                                                                           binding act — Infringement of essential procedural require-
                          of 10 April 2003                                 ments — Procedural time-limits for reply — Error of
                                                                                assessment)
in Case T-195/00: Travelex Global and Financial Services
Ltd and Interpayment Services Ltd v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                          (2003/C 135/36)
(Non-contractual liability — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade                                        (Language of the case: French)
                 marks — Official euro symbol)
                          (2003/C 135/35)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA, established in Nancy
                                                                           (France), Société de gestion de restauration routière SA (SG2R),
                                                                           established in Nancy, represented by F. Puel and M. Troncoso
                                                                           Ferrer, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           W. Mölls, F. Siredey-Garnier and F. Lelièvre), supported by
In Case T-195/00, Travelex Global and Financial Services Ltd,              French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million) —
formerly Thomas Cook Group Ltd, established in London                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(United Kingdom), Interpayment Services Ltd, established in                of 13 September 2000 rejecting TotalFina Elf’s proposal
London, represented by C. Delcorde and D. Alexander, lawyers,              concerning approval of the applicants as transferees of six
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of                 motorway service stations — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and R. Z. Swift):               Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused               Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,
to the applicants by the Commission’s adoption, use and                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in
promotion of the official euro symbol, which is allegedly                  which it:
substantially identical to a graphic trade mark registered by
the applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,           1.     Dismisses the application as unfounded;
has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
1.     Dismisses the action;                                                      the Commission, including the costs relating to the application
                                                                                for interim relief.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01.
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case C-494/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/6

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH
   (Case C-494/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour including the word elements ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a blue background - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration)
   (2015/C 146/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: B. Pikolin, Rechtsanwältin)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-41/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/54

         Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-41/06)
   (2006/C 131/98)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, professor and lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2005, by which the applicant was retired and granted an invalidity allowance established in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2005, notified on 20 January 2006, which rejected the applicant's complaint against the decision of 30 May 2005;

               —

               Annul a whole series of measures connected to the abovementioned decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the material, non-material and substantial damage sustained, together with interest at the statutory rate;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision to retire him on account of permanent invalidity, and a series of measures connected to that decision.
   He submits that the contested decisions are unlawful on account of:

               —

               Total failure to state adequate grounds, inter alia by stating tautologous, inconsistent and incoherent reasons;

               —

               Infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Procedural errors, infringements of laws and infringement of substantive rules;

               —

               Infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and of the duty of sound administration;

               —

               Misuse of power and of the principle of not causing harm to others.


title: Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Hans Gevaert against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-160/97)

text:
No C 228/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Massimo Marzola
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                 against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                      ( Case T-161/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/53 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 8 August 1996                                    (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                      An action against the Commission of the European
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              by Massimo Marzola, residing in Brussels, represented
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                     by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 — annul the Commission's decision refusing to transfer
Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                            to the Community scheme the pension rights acquired
                                                                            by him in the USA between 1 March 1977 and
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
                                                                            31 August 1985 ,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Hans Gevaert against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-160/97 )                            The applicant states that, upon becoming established in
                                                                       March 1986, he requested the transfer to the Community
                            ( 97/C 228/52 )                            scheme of the pension rights acquired by him in a private
                 (Language of the case: French)                        pension scheme in the United States. In the absence of a
                                                                       favourable response, he took numerous steps to secure the
                                                                       transfer of rights acquired by him in an Italian pension
An action against the Commission of the European                       scheme, with a view to procuring the subsequent transfer
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      of those rights to the Community scheme . That course of
Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
                                                                       action, which was acceptable to the Commission, was
by Hans Gevaert, residing at Merelbeke ( Belgium ),                    rejected by the competent Italian administrative
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            authorities. On 27 August 1996 the applicant ultimately
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                       decided to submit a formal request under Article 90 ( 1 ) of
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       the Staff Regulations of Officials for the transfer to the
                                                                       Community scheme of the pension rights in issue . That
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            request was rejected by the defendant, on the ground that
                                                                       it had not been submitted within the prescribed period of
— annul the Commission's decision of 26 August 1996                    six months from the date of the applicant's appointment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    That rejection constitutes the decision which is contested
     consideration to the possible application of                      in the present case .
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's              The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 11 (2 )
                                                                       of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and breach of the
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                                                                       duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       officials; he maintains that the Commission provided him
                                                                       with incorrect information concerning the possibility of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           having the rights acquired in the United States transferred
                                                                       to the Community pension scheme and the procedure to
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   be followed for the submission of a request to that effect.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T- 16/97 (>).                                                    He also maintains that the contested decision is vitiated,
                                                                       contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, by a total
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       absence of any relevant statement of reasons .


7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-795/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/54

         Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)
   (Case T-795/16)
   (2017/C 006/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘CRABS’ — Application for registration No 1 186 110

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2507/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen, by judgment of that court of 31 January 1995 in the case of (1) E. Pastoors and (2) Trans-Cap GmbH v. Belgian State (Case C-29/95)

text:
No C 87/4            [ EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8 . 4 . 95
Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 March 1995, the operative                   security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
part of which is as follows :                                               persons and to members of their families moving within
                                                                            the Community 0, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2), to be
 1 . on a proper construction of the expression 'place where                interpreted as also applying to benefits granted by a
     the harmful event occurred' in Article 5 (3) of the                    Member State in the form of a national subsidy upon
      Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and
                                                                            application and without legal entitlement (in this case in
     the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and Commercial                    accordance with the guidelines on the granting of
     Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
                                                                            adaptation allowance to employees in the coal mining
      1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,                      Industry) to older employees in the coal mining industry
     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    laid off as a result of closure or rationalization
     Northern Ireland and by the Convention of25 October                    measures ?
     1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the
     victim of a libel by a newspaper article distributed in
     several Contracting States may bring an action for                2. If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 4 ( 1 ) (c )
     damages against the publisher either before the courts of              of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 require the national
     the Contracting State of the place where the publisher of              subsidy granted by the Member State to be assessed in
     the defamatory publication is established, which have                  accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EEC )
     jurisdiction to award damages for all the harm caused by               No 1408/71 , having regard to Article 46 ( 2 ) ( b ) in
     the defamation, or before the courts ofeach Contracting                particular ?
     State in which the publication was distributed and
     where the victim claims to have suffered injury to his
     reputation, which have jurisdiction to rule solely in             3 . If the national subsidy granted by the Member State is to
     respect of the harm caused in the State of the court                   be assessed in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation
     seised;                                                                (EEC) No 1408/71 :
2 . the criteria for assessing whether the event in question is             Does the first sentence of Article 12 (2 ) of Regulation
     harmful and the evidence required of the existence and                 (EEC ) No 1408/71 permit a pension, within the
     extent of the harm alleged by the victim of the                        meaning of Article 1 (t) of Regulation (EEC)
     defamation are not governed by the Convention but by                   No 1408/71 , paid by another Member State (in this case
     the substantive law determined by the national conflict                the Netherlands WAO pension) to be deducted, or does
     of laws rules of the court seised, provided that the                   the second sentence of Article 12 (2 ) of Regulation
     effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby                         (EEC) No 1408/71 preclude such deduction ?
     impaired.
                                                                       4. If a deduction in accordance with the first sentence of
0 ) OJ No C 117, 28 . 4. 1993 .                                             Article 12 (2 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 is
(2 ) OJ No L 299 , 31 . 12 . 1972 .                                         permissible:
(3 ) OJ No L 304, 30. 10. 1978 , p. 1 — amended text — p. 77.
(4 ) OJ No L 388 , 31 . 12 . 1982 , p . 1 .                                 Is such deduction limited by Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (3)
                                                                            laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation
                                                                            ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as amended and updated by Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                 (M OJ No L 149, 5 . 7. 1971 , p. 2.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 12 January            (2) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6.
1995 in the case of Siegfried Otte v. Federal Republic of              (3 ) OJ No L 74, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 1 .
                              Germany
                          Case C-25/95
                             95/C 87/07
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Higher Administrative Court                  Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen, by judgment of that court of
Hessen) of 12 January 1995, which was received at the                 31 January 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) E. Pastoors and (2 )
Court Registry on 2 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling                         Trans-Cap GmbH v. Belgian State
in the case of Siegfried Otte v. Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-29/95 )
on the following questions:
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/08
1 . Are paragraphs ( 1 ) and (2 ) of Article 4, and in particular
     Article 4 ( 1 ) (c) of Council Regulation ( EEC)                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social          European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 87/5
Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen ( Court of First Instance,                      Court of First Instance on 27 June 1994 inadmissible,
Antwerp) of 31 January 1995 , which was received at the                    and    order  that     the  substance   of  the   case  be
Court Registry on 8 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling              considered;
in the case of ( 1 ) E. Pastoors and (2 ) Trans-Cap GmbH v.
Belgian State on the following question:                              2. grant the form of order sought at first instance, as set out
                                                                           in the application lodged at the Registry of the Court of
Should the prohibition on discrimination contained in                      First Instance on 27 June 1994 and supplemented by a
Article 6 of the EC Treaty or the general principle of equality            statement lodged on 8 September 1994, and hereby
enshrined in Community law be interpreted as precluding                    resubmitted in its entirety, and order the Commission to
the national legislation of a Member State, adopted in                     pay the whole of the costs.
implementation of Council Regulations ( EEC ) No 3820/85
and ( EEC ) No 3821/85 , from providing for a system of               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
sanctions whereby natural or legal persons charged with
infringements of that legislation are given the choice                — A defect which vitiates the procedure constitutes an
between:                                                                  objective and significant ground for judicial review with
                                                                          respect also to other candidates in the same legal
(a ) immediate payment of a given sum, in this case Bfrs                  position. The procedural defect may be transferable and
       10 000 per infringement, whereupon the prosecution is              apply also in the case of the present applicant for the
       as a rule discontinued;                                            purposes of reopening the proceedings. Whether that
                                                                          assumption is well founded may be definitively
       or                                                                 established only through an examination of the
                                                                          substance of the case, the exclusion of which on the basis
( b ) the continuation against them of the normal criminal                of a procedural objection which is open to challenge can
       proceedings; subject to the proviso, however, that, in             only lead to a denial of jurisdiction, to the serious
       the event of the second of those options being chosen, it          detriment of the applicant's position in so far as concerns
       is only defendants having no place of residence or fixed           the rights of the defence.
       abode in Belgium who are obliged, whether or not they
       are nationals of another Member State, to lodge a sum          — The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in
       — in this case Bfrs 15 000 — by way of deposit in                  support are identical to those in Case T-242/94 (*).
       respect of each offence with which they are charged, to
       cover any fines or legal costs which they may be ordered       (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p. 26 .
       to pay, and subject to the impounding of the vehicle
       driven by the accused until such time as the deposit is
       lodged ?
                                                                      Appeal brought on 10 February 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the judgment delivered
                                                                      on 6 December 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Sergio Del Plato                 T-450/93 between Lisrestal — Organizagao e Gestao de
against the order of inadmissibility made on 7 December               Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, GTI — Gabinete Tecnico de
1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of           Informatica Lda, Lisnico — Servigo Maritimo Internacional
the European Communities in Case T-242/94 between                     Lda, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistencia Maritima Lda
Sergio Del Plato and the Commission of the European                   and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de Desgasificagao de Navios SA
                           Communities
                                                                          and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-31/95 P)                                                    (Case C-32/95 P)
                           ( 95/C 87/09 )                                                        ( 95/C 87/10 )
An appeal against the order made on 7 December 1994 by                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 December
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities in Case T-242/94 between Sergio                  the European Communities in Case T-450/93 between
Del Plato and the Commission of the European                          Lisrestal — Organiza^ao e Gestao de Restaurantes
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the            Colectivos Lda, GTI — Gabinete Tecnico de Informatica
European Communities on 9 February 1995 by Sergio Del                 Lda, Lisnico — Servi^o Maritimo Internacional Lda,
Plato, represented by Luigi Bonomi, with an address for               Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistencia Maritima Lda and
service in Varese, at the latter's Chambers at 6 Via                  Gaslimpo — Sociedade de Desgasifica§ao de Navios SA and
Orrigoni.                                                             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                      before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           10 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
1 . annul the order of the Court of First Instance of                 Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
      7 December 1994 in Case T-242/94, notified to the               an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      appellant on 12 December 1994, declaring the action             Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      brought by application lodged at the Registry of the            Kirchberg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-105/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna): Ditta Angelo Celestini v. Saar-Sektkellerei Faber GmbH & Co. KG (Common organization of the market in wine - Control of wines from another Member State - Method of testing oxygen isotopes in water using abundance ratio mass spectrometry)

text:
  16 . 8 . 97         Ien |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 252/1
                                                                      I
                                                               (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        accompanied by bona fide certificates of analysis
                         ( Second Chamber)                                    issued by research institutes duly authorized in the
                                                                              Member State of origin, provided that those controls
                            of 5 June 1997                                    are applied in a non-discriminatory manner, that they
in Case C-105/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     observe the principle of proportionality and that
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna ): Ditta Angelo                      account is taken, in particular, of the controls already
   Celestini v. Saar-Sektkellerei Faber GmbH &C Co. KG (M                     carried out in the Member State of origin.
 (Common organization of the market in wine — Control
of wines from another Member State — Method of testing                   2 . It is for the national court to determine, in accordance
oxygen isotopes in water using abundance ratio mass                           with the rules of procedure applicable in that Member
                             spectrometry)                                    State, whether the wine analysis method known as
                                                                              'determination of 0 18/0 16 abundance ratio of water in
                              97/C 252/01                                     wine ' is consistent with the criteria of accuracy,
                                                                              repeatability and reproducibility laid down in
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             Article 74 (2) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
                                                                              87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of
                                                                              the market in wine.
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 132, 14 . 5 . 1994 .
In Case C-105/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di
Ravenna ( Civil and Criminal Court, Ravenna ) ( Italy ), for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Ditta Angelo Celestini and Saar
Sektkellerei     Faber     GmbH      &   Co .  KG    —    on   the                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty and                                         (Fifth Chamber)
of Article 74 ( 2 ) (c ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the
market in wine ( OJ No L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p. 1 ), read in              in Case C-2/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
conjunction with Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 2676/                  the Østre Landsret): Sparekassernes Datacenter ( SDC ) v.
90 of 17 September 1990 determining Community                                                  Skatteministeriet ( ] )
methods for the analysis of wines ( OJ No L 272, 3 . 10 .
1990, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                        (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13 B (d), points 3 to 5 —
                                                                                Exempt transactions)
G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly,                                               ( 97/C 252/02 )
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
it has ruled :
1 . Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty must be                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      interpreted as not precluding a Member State from                            published in the European Court Reports)
      subjecting wine produced in another Member State to
      an appropriate control in order to test its conformity            In Case C-2/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      with Community rules, even where that wine is                     of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Denmark) for a


title: Case T-136/09: Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Commission v Galor

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/49

         Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Commission v Galor
   (Case T-136/09)
   2009/C 141/102
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, F. Mirza, agents, assisted by B. Katan and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: Benjamin Galor (Jupiter, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

               —

               order Galor to pay the Community EUR 205 611, to be increased by the statutory interest pursuant to Article 6 119 DCC as of 1 March 2003 up to the date the Community will have received full payment;

               —

               order Galor to pay the Community the statutory interest pursuant to Article 6.119 DCC on EUR 9 231,25 as of 2 September 2003 (or, alternatively, as of 10 March 2007) up to the date the Community will have received full payment;

               —

               order Galor to pay the costs of the current proceedings, provisionally estimated at EUR 17 900, to be increased by the statutory interest pursuant to Article 6.119 DCC as of the date of judgment up to the date the Community will have received full payment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 23 December 1997 the European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into a contract IN/004/97 with Prof. Benjamin Galor and three companies for the implementation of the project ‘Self-Upgrading of Old-Design Gas Turbines in Land & Marine Industries by Energy-Saving Clean Jet-Engine Technologies’ under the Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1). Pursuant to the contract provision, the Commission made an advance payment of its contribution for the project to the contractors. The payment was received by the leader of the project, Prof. Benjamin Galor.
   For reasons related to the difficulties for the contractors to find an associated contractor for the project and because no progress had been made in the implementation of the project, the Commission decided to terminate the contract. In its letter to the contractors, the Commission specified that the Community contribution could only be paid (or kept by the contractors) as far as it was related to the project and justified through the final technical and financial report.
   The final report submitted by the contractors was not approved by the Commission and the Commission started the procedure for recovering the advance payment.
   In its application, the Commission submits that the defendant did not reimburse the amount received, but instead demanded that the Commission pays him a foreseen contribution under the contract minus the advance payment. Furthermore, the defendant started legal proceedings before the Dutch courts to recover this amount. The jurisdiction of the Dutch courts was disputed by the Commission on the basis of the jurisdiction clause in the contract designating the Court of First Instance to decide on any disputes between the contracting parties.
   In its application, the Commission seeks the recovery of the advance paid. The Commission claims that it was entitled to terminate the contract in application of the contract’s provisions as the defendant acted in breach of his contractual obligations because, inter alia: there was an important delay in commencement of the project and the project showed no progress, the defendant was not able to engage technical means required for the research that the funding had been provided for and the technical and financial reports did not meet the contractual requirements.
   Therefore, the Commission contends that it is entitled to demand reimbursement of the advance payment.

      (1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) OJ 1994 L 334, p. 87


title: Case T-254/02: Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 261/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                         claims that the Decision would erred in taking into account
Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission                    only the effect on competition that could arise from the
                of the European Communities                              operation of the heritage centre on the West Pier. Instead, the
                                                                         Decision should also take into account the effect on compe-
                                                                         tition and trade that could arise from the management and use
                        (Case T-252/02)                                  of the new shore end commercial buildings and the commercial
                                                                         space on the West Pier. According to the applicant, these new
                                                                         commercial developments would not take place without the
                        (2002/C 261/34)                                  funded restoration of the West Pier.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
                                                                         concluding that if there was aid, it was compatible with the
                                                                         common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                According to the applicant, the Commission failed to weigh
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               up the benefits of any cultural or heritage objective against the
European Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                   much larger purely commercial aspects. Furthermore, it failed
Marine and Palace Pier Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear                    to take into account the potential disadvantages for the
(United Kingdom), represented by C. Vajda QC and T. Usher,               applicant, Palace Pier, which is also an English Heritage listed
Solicitor.                                                               building, and relies solely on its commercial viability.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of 9 April 2002 both in respect of the
      conclusions under Article 87(1) and Article 87(3)(d) of
      the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-254/02)
The applicant operates the Brighton Palace Pier. In the                                          (2002/C 261/35)
contested Decision, the Commission held that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier did not involve state aid and
declared, in the alternative, any aid to be compatible with the                            (Language of the case: French)
common market. The applicant points out that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier involves the participation of a private
partner, St. Modwen. This partner will, after the restoration,
exploit the pier and adjacent lands commercially. This would
create a direct competitor for the applicant since the West Pier,
which is situated only 1,2 kilometres away from the Palace               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pier, would then offer the same services and attractions as the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant currently offers.                                              European Communities on 23 August 2002 by L, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyers.
The applicant submits that the Commission erred in conclud-
ing that the measures did not favour St. Modwen. According               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, the funding of the restoration gives St.
Modwen the opportunity to carry out a large commercial
development of a scale and in a locality which would not                 —     annul the decision of the Commission of 30 April 2002
otherwise be possible. This gives St. Modwen a competitive                     and the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of
advantage over the applicant.                                                  4 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to compensate the applicant;
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in concluding that the measures in issue would have no effect
on competition and intra community trade. The applicant                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s rejection of the         munity trade mark:
applicant’s request that it institute legal proceedings with
regard to the harassment complained of. Secondly, the appli-             The Community trade          Word mark ‘RUFFLES’ — Appli-
cant contests the implied decision not to recognise the illness          mark concerned:              cation No 000096875, for goods
suffered by the applicant, following such harassment, as an                                           in Classes 29 and 30 (food and
occupational disease.                                                                                condiments)
                                                                         Proprietor of the right to   Convent Knabber-Gebäck GmbH.
In support of the action in respect of the first act, the applicant      the trade mark or sign
alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.          asserted by way of oppo-
In the applicant’s view, the reasons for the decision are                sition in the opposition
inconsistent.                                                            proceedings:
                                                                         Trade mark or sign           German mark ‘RIFFELS’ registered
Moreover, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(1)            asserted by way of oppo-     for goods in Class 29 (potato
and (2) of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission refuses          sition in the opposition     chips)
to take legal action and in that it refuses to grant the applicant       proceedings:
access to information which it has available to it regarding the
harassing conduct.                                                       Decision of the Oppo-        Application upheld as regards
                                                                         sition Division:             ‘dried vegetables’ (Class 29) and
                                                                                ‘fine pastry and confectionery’
In support of the action in respect of the second act, the                                            (Class 30). Application dismissed
applicant alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff                                          as regards ‘cereal preparations’
Regulations. The applicant claims not to have received any                                            (Class 30).
reasons for the implied rejection of the request submitted.
                                                                         Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                         Appeal:
                                                                         Grounds of claim:            Breach of the principles that the
                                                                                rights of the defence are to be
                                                                                observed and that reasons must
                                                                                be provided, in accordance with
                                                                                Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc.                                                    No 40/94, and of co-existence
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market                                               and comparability between Com-
              (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                        munity trade marks and national
                                                                                trade marks
                        (Case T-269/02)
                        (2002/C 261/36)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di
                                                                         Napoli against Commission of the European Communities
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                       (Case T-272/02)
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc., whose registered office is                                     (2002/C 261/37)
in New York (United States of America), represented by
Enrique Armijo Chávarri.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul decision No 114/2000-1 of the OHIM of 10 June                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      2002;                                                              European Communities on 4 September 2002 by the Munici-
                                                                         pality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio
—     order OHIM to pay the costs.                                       Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.


title: Case C-404/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 May 2011 in Case T-299/08 Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/15

         Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 17 May 2011 in Case T-299/08 Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case C-404/11 P)
   2011/C 298/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

                     Primarily:

                           —

                           on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, set aside in full the judgement of the General Court of 17 May 2011 in Case T-299/08 Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

                           —

                           grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court;

                           —

                           consequently, annul Articles 1(f), 2(c), 2(e), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate);

               —

                     In the alternative
                  , amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 22 700 000 imposed on Arkema SA and Elf Aquitaine joint and severally in Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate), and the fine of EUR 15 890 000 imposed on Elf Aquitaine personally in Article 2(e) of that decision, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, as a result of the objective errors in the grounds and the reasons for the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 in Case T-299/08, as set out in its six grounds of appeal;

               —

                     In any event
                  , order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises six main grounds of appeal and one in the alternative.
   By its first ground of appeal, Elf Aquitaine SA claims that the General Court infringed Article 5 EU in so far as it validated the principle that a parent company is automatically liable for the infringements committed by its subsidiary, applied in the case at first instance by the Commission and justified by the concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Such an approach is incompatible, or at least disproportionate, with the principles of conferral and subsidiarity (first part) and the principle of proportionality (second part).
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court made a manifestly erroneous interpretation of national law and of the concept of undertaking in that it conferred an imprecise legal value to the principle of autonomy of legal persons, inter alia.
   By it third ground of appeal, the appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court voluntarily refused to draw consequences from the criminal nature of competition law sanctions and from the new obligations resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In the appellant's view, the General Court applied the concept of undertaking under EU law abusively and erroneously, in spite of the presumption of autonomy on which national company law is based and of the criminal nature of competition law sanctions. Moreover, the appellant submits that the General Court should have raised, of its own motion, the illegality of the current administrative procedure before the Commission.
   By its fourth plea in law, the appellant claims that its rights of defence have been infringed as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the principles of equality and equality of arms. The General Court approved the Commission's use of a probatio diabolica and erred in finding that the autonomy of a subsidiary must be assessed in a general manner in relation to its capital links with its parent company, whereas it should be assessed in relation to its conduct on a given market.
   By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant invokes an infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the General Court briefly took note of the rejection of its arguments by the Commission, without providing any analysis of the Commission's arguments (first part). Moreover, Elf Aquitaine SA accuses the General Court of failing to give reasons in relation to the presumption of imputability (second part), and insufficient reasons in relation to the personal fine imposed on the appellant (third part).
   By its sixth plea, the appellant claims that the personal fine was unlawful as the Guidelines on the method of setting fines was misapplied (first part), a false legal basis was created to impose a personal fine (second part), and the grounds given for the judgment under appeal based on the concept of single undertaking and the imposition of an personal fine were contradictory (third part).
   By its seventh and final ground of appeal (in the alternative), the appellant submits that the amount of the personal fine imposed on it for the purposes of deterrence were disproportionate and justify an amendment thereof.


title: Case C-146/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg an der Lahn (Sixth VAT Directive — First subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) — Intra-Community supply — Refusal of exemption — Belated production of evidence of the supply)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg an der Lahn
   (Case C-146/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - First subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) - Intra-Community supply - Refusal of exemption - Belated production of evidence of the supply)
   (2007/C 297/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Limburg an der Lahn
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Refusal of tax exemption in respect of the turnover of an intra-Community supply of goods — Delayed production of the invoice proving the intra-Community nature of the transaction.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as precluding the refusal by the tax authority of a Member State to allow an intra-Community supply — which actually took place — to be exempt from value added tax solely on the ground that the evidence of such a supply was not produced in good time.
   When examining the right of exemption from value added tax in relation to such a supply, the referring court should take into account the fact that the taxable person initially knowingly concealed the fact that an intra-Community supply had occurred only if there is a risk of a loss in tax revenues and that risk has not been wholly eliminated by the taxable person in question.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 30 July 2003 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG

text:
C 275/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          15.11.2003
Furthermore, the substantive amendments made by the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
Council following the Opinion of the Parliament give rise to a           of by order of that Court of 30 July 2003 in the case of
claim that the Parliament’s rights under the co-decision                 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei Champig-
procedure under Article 251 EC were infringed.                                           non Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG
Finally the Federal Government claims in the alternative that                                       (Case C-385/03)
the principle of proportionality has been infringed since the
total bans provided for in Articles 3 and 4 on advertising in
the press and/or printed publications as well as on the radio                                      (2003/C 275/48)
and the internet deliberately and specifically target local or
regional situations with no cross-border element almost
exclusively, with the result that the extensive prohibitions,
within the meaning of Article 14(1) EC on the improvement                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the internal market, are not necessary and are therefore              European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
disproportionate. The infringement of the principle of pro-              (Federal Finance Court) of 30 July 2003, received at the Court
portionality is all the more serious because the prohibitions            Registry on 12 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
have a significant adverse effect on the basic right of freedom          the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei
of thought and press freedom, owing to the excessively                   Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG on the following
broad and unspecific definition of the terms ‘advertising’ in            question:
Article 2(b) and ‘the press and other printed publications’ in
Articles 1(a) and 3 of the Directive.
                                                                         Must the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of
(1) OJ L 152, p. 16.
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as amended by Regulation
                                                                         (EC) No 2945/94 (2), be interpreted — also in the light of
                                                                         the principle of proportionality — as meaning that false
                                                                         information relating to individual items listed in the export
                                                                         declaration, which could result in the exporter receiving a
                                                                         higher export refund than that to which it is entitled, is by
                                                                         itself sufficient to give rise to a punitive reduction in the export
                                                                         refund in the amount set out in those provisions, even though
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,                 the exporter expressly stated in connection with the separate
Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the               application for payment which must be submitted under
          case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt                     national law that it would not be applying for an export refund
                                                                         in respect of the relevant items in the export declaration?
                         (Case C-382/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (2003/C 275/47)                                 (2) OJ L 310 of 3.12.1994, p. 57.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
Ireland, dated 2 April 2003, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Ryanair Ltd and Aer Rianta cpt on the following
questions:                                                               Action brought on 5 September 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
A.    Is an airport check-in desk an ‘airport installation’ within                                   Communities
      the meaning of Article 16 (3) of the Directive (1)?
B.    If the answer to A is in the affirmative, is a rent charged                                   (Case C-388/03)
      for the exclusive right to occupy a particular check-in
      desk for a period of one year or greater a fee for access to                                 (2003/C 275/49)
      airport installations within the meaning of Article 16 (3)
      of the Directive?
(1) Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to           An action against the Commission was brought before the
    the groundhandling market at Community airports OJ L 272,            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 September
    25.10.1996, p. 36-45.                                                2003 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by
                                                                         H.G. Sevenster, Head of the European Law Division of the
                                                                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague.


title: Case T-123/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Ryanair v European Commission (State aid — Loan granted to an airline company and capable of being counted as own capital — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Sale of assets of an airline company — Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase — Actions for annulment — Locus standi — Interested party — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Jurisdiction — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Ryanair v European Commission
   (Case T-123/09) (1)

   (State aid - Loan granted to an airline company and capable of being counted as own capital - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Sale of assets of an airline company - Decision finding no aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase - Actions for annulment - Locus standi - Interested party - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Jurisdiction - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 138/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic, (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, lawyers); and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Fiumicino, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/155/EC of 12 November 2008, concerning the loan of EUR 300 million granted by Italy to the airline company Alitalia (C 26/08 (ex NN 31/08)) (OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3), and the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008, concerning State Aid (N 510/2008, OJ 2009 C 46, p. 6) — Italy — Sale of the assets of Alitalia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ryanair Ltd to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-418/99: Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
22.1.2000               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 20/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht                      Pleas in law and main arguments
te Groningen by decision of 19 October 1999 in the case
of Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Groningen
and Challenger Trading Company Ltd, a company incor-
                   porated under foreign law                                 The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain should,
                                                                             in accordance with Article 13 of the directive, have complied
                          (Case C-410/99)                                    with the designation obligation by no later than 21 May 1998,
                                                                             and states that, despite the adoption of Council Directive
                           (2000/C 20/21)                                    1999/30/EC (2), the first of the directives implementing Direc-
                                                                             tive 96/62/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has not yet notified it of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the authorities and bodies responsible for implementing that
European Communities by decision of 19 October 1999 of                       directive.
the Kantongerecht te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen),
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kamer van Koophandel                 (1) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.
en Fabrieken voor Groningen (Chamber of Commerce and                         (2) OJ L 163 of 29.6.1999, p. 41.
Industry for Groningen) and Challenger Trading Company Ltd,
a company incorporated under foreign law, on the following
question:
Do the (new) Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community preclude formally foreign companies,
within the meaning of Article 1 of the Wet op de formeel
buitenlandse vennootschappen (Netherlands Law on formally
foreign companies), from being subject in the Netherlands to
the provisions of Article 2 et seq of that Law? (1)
                                                                             Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
(1) Article 2 et seq of this Law make formally foreign companies
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    subject to a number of provisions of Netherlands company law
    designed to protect the interests of third parties, such as provisions
    concerning registration in the Commercial Register, minimum
    capital, duty to maintain accounts, as well as the preparation,                                     (Case C-418/99)
    arrangement and publication of annual accounts.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/23)
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                 Spain                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                             and Giacinto Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to
                          (Case C-417/99)
                                                                             its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
                                                                             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                           (2000/C 20/22)                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
munities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    — declare that, by failing to adopt, or at any rate to
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                                communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                                and of the Council of 16 December 1997(1) on the
— declare that, by failing to designate the competent auth-                       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     orities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of                     to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate
     Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC (1) of 27 Septem-                    pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed
     ber 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and manage-                       in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has
     ment, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     obligations under that directive;
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                               — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.1.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         time-limit expired on 30 September 1997, but the Italian
                                                                        Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),                 with the directive mentioned in the forms of order sought by
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result       the Commission.
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit         (1) OJ L 48 of 19 February 1997, p. 20.
in the present case expired on 30 June 1998 without the
Italian Republic having adopted the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the directive referred to in the Com-
mission’s application. Failure by a State to comply with its
obligations — Failure to transpose, within the period pre-
scribed for that purpose, Directive 97/68/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate                Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
non-road mobile machinery.
                                                                                (Case C-420/99)
(1) OJ L 59 of 27.2.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/25)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                     Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto Bisogni,
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                a judge of the Court of Appeal, seconded to that Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agents, with an address for service at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (Case C-419/99)
                          (2000/C 20/24)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               — declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by failing
the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the                     to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto Bisogni,             Directive 96/70/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
a judge of the Court of Appeal, seconded to that Legal Service,             the Council of 28 October 1996 relating to the exploi-
acting as Agents, with an address for service at the office of              tation and marketing of natural mineral waters, the Italian
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                            directive,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by failing
     to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Pleas in law and main arguments
     Directive 96/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
     the Council of 19 December 1996 amending Directive
     89/398/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the                 Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), in
     Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular       accordance with which a directive is binding, as to the result
     nutritional uses, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its    to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
     obligations under that directive,                                  addressed, requires those Member States to comply with the
                                                                        time-limits for implementation laid down in the directive.
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          The time-limit expired on 28 October 1997, but the Italian
                                                                        Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply
                                                                        with the directive mentioned in the forms of order sought by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the Commission.
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), in
accordance with which a directive is binding, as to the result          (1) OJ L 299 of 23 November 1996, p. 26.
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires those Member States to comply with the
time-limits for implementation laid down in the directive. The