title: Case T-224/02: Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of             The applicants are contesting the change in the calculation
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of            method used by the Commission up until 1996 and/or 1997
equal treatment and of the principle that officials should have            in relation to the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
reasonable career prospects and manifest error of assessment
and failure to provide reasons.
                                                                           They point out in that regard that the travel expenses in
                                                                           question were previously calculated on the basis of the cost of
The promotions committee awarded the applicant additional                  a first class rail ticket for a journey passing through Yugoslavia,
points in order to ensure that he was not penalised for his                regardless of the final destination. The new method involves
mobility. The Commission however does not provide any                      taking into consideration, in respect of certain destinations, a
explanation of how those additional points were taken into                 journey via Brindisi to the various Greek frontier posts based
consideration when examining the comparative merits of the                 on the cost of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket.
candidates. Neither does it explain why it promoted persons
whose total points were fewer than those of the applicant.
                                                                           In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                                Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch
                                                                                as the change in the method of calculating the travel
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                                expenses in issue has resulted in the persons concerned
and Others against the Commission of the European                                being treated differently from their colleagues whose
                          Communities                                            place of origin is located in northern Greece. Whereas,
                                                                                for part of Greece, the sum continues to be calculated on
                        (Case T-221/02)                                          the basis of a journey via Yugoslavia, the same calculation
                                                                                cannot be carried out for the rest of Greece;
                        (2002/C 247/27)                                    —     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                the persons concerned have been denied the possibility
                   (Language of the case: French)                                of presenting to the competent authority their views on
                                                                                the choice of itinerary and the tariff to be taken into
                                                                                account;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       reasons, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
European Communities on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                          expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
and 63 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer,                       welfare and interests of officials.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from 1996 and/or 1997, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling           Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken             against the Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration for certain destinations;
                                                                                (Case T-224/02)
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the competent hier-
      archical authority to reimburse, with effect from 1996
      and/or 1997, the cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to                                        (2002/C 247/28)
      various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras)
      on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
      implementing the decisions annulment of which is
      sought;                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat
      Commission to pay those costs.                                       Icardo, represented by M. Lucas, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            —     order the Commission to pay him 8 % annual interest on
                                                                             those amounts, dating from 23 July 2002 until payment
—    annul the decision of 8 December 1998 of the Director-                  in full;
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    in so far as necessary, annul the instructions attached to
     the note of 29 July 1999 from the Head of the ‘Human
     Resources’ unit of DG DEV;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—    annul the decision of 21 October 1999 of the Director-
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       The applicant, a former Head of Unit, in Grade A3, requests
—    annul the decision of 22 December 1999 of the Director-           annulment of the Commission’s decision to reassign him as a
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       counsellor and to entrust him with certain duties in that
                                                                       capacity. He also asks the Court to find that the Commission
—    annul the decision of 19 February 2001 of the Director-           is acting unlawfully by failing to reassign him in a middle
     General of DG DEV;                                                management post or to second him outside the institution in
                                                                       the interest of the service. In addition, he is requesting
—    annul the decision of 14 November 2001 of the Director            the annulment of his periodic report for 1999-2001 and
     of Directorate D of DG DEV, approved by its Director-             compensation for the material and non-material damage he
     General;                                                          has suffered.
—    annul his staff report for 1999-2001, drawn up on
     18 March 2002 by the Director of Directorate D of DG              In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims
     DEV;                                                              that the Commission infringed Articles 5(4) and 7 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, as well as Annex IV to the General Implementing
—    annul the decision by the External Service Steering               Provisions, of 10 March 1997, of Article 5(4) of the Staff
     Committee to reject his application for a post as Head of         Regulations, in that he was not assigned the functions or was
     Delegation under the 2002 rotation exercise, as well as           assigned functions which did not correspond to his post and
     the confirmation of that decision;                                grade. Moreover, he claims that the Commission infringed the
                                                                       principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations in that not reassigning him in certain middle
—    annul the implied decision of 16 September 2001 to
                                                                       management posts and not seconding him outside the insti-
     reject his request of 16 May 2001;
                                                                       tution in the interest of the service went against promises,
                                                                       decisions and commitments made by the administration.
—    should they constitute a response to the request of
     16 May 2001, annul the decisions of 31 October and
     14 December 2001 by the Chef de Cabinet of the Vice-
     President of the Commission and of the Director-General
     of DG DEV;
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to reassign the
     applicant as Head of the ‘Indian Ocean’ unit of DG DEV
     by his Director-General in March 2000;
                                                                       Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to second the
     applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Spanish
     civil service in Madrid or to the FAO in Rome;                                            (Case T-226/02)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     non-material damage, the sum of EUR 10 000 assessed                                       (2002/C 247/29)
     ex aequo et bono;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     the damage to his career, a sum corresponding to the
     difference between the retirement pension and other
     benefits to which he is entitled under the second indent
     of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations on the date on             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     which he requests early retirement and the remuneration,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     retirement pension and other benefits to which he would           European Communities on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq,
     be entitled if he could have retired from his post at the         residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Lucas
     age of 65;                                                        Vogel and Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.


title: Case C-243/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi
   (Case C-243/08)
   (2008/C 247/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Budaörsi Városi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pannon GSM Zrt.

      Defendant: Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) — pursuant to which Member States are to provide that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer — be construed as meaning that the non-binding nature vis-à-vis the consumer of an unfair term introduced by the seller or supplier does not have effect ipso jure but only where the consumer successfully contests the unfair term by lodging the relevant application?

               2.

               Does the consumer protection provided by Directive 93/13/EEC require the national court of its own motion — irrespective of the type of proceedings in question and of whether or not they are contentious — to determine that the contract before it contains unfair terms, even where no application contesting the unfair nature of the term has been lodged, thereby carrying out, of its own motion, a review of the terms introduced by the seller or supplier in the context of exercising control over its own jurisdiction?

               3.

               In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative, what are the factors which the national court must take into account and evaluate in the context of exercising this control?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case F-38/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Alari v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2009 promotion exercise — Transfer from one institution to another during promotion exercise in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin — Institution with competence to decide on promotion of the transferred official)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Alari v Parliament
   (Case F-38/11) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2009 promotion exercise - Transfer from one institution to another during promotion exercise in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Institution with competence to decide on promotion of the transferred official)
   2011/C 282/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gianluigi Alari (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J. N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and M. Ecker, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant in the 2009 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               2.

               orders the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 18.06.11, p. 22


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Case T-26/01: Fiocchi munizioni SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Articles 296 EC and 298 EC — State aid granted to an arms production undertaking — Complaint — Action for declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)

text:
13.12.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/23
1)    Dismisses the application.                                           3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                                which gave rise to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                                of 16 May 2002 Rounis v Commission (T-17/01).
2)    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      the Commission and the interveners, KirchPayTV and BSkyB.
                                                                           4.    In the present proceedings, orders the Commission to bear its
                                                                                own costs and to pay one-third of the costs incurred by the
(1) OJ 2000 C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                  applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 30 September 2003
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-17/01: Georgios Rounis v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                     of 30 September 2003
(Officials — Articles 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the                 in Case T-26/01: Fiocchi munizioni SpA v Commission of
Staff Regulations — Transfer of a part of remuneration in                                   the European Communities (1)
the currency of a Member State other than the country in
which the institution has its seat — Conditions — Loss —
                    Assessment of damages)                                 (Articles 296 EC and 298 EC — State aid granted to an
                                                                           arms production undertaking — Complaint — Action for
                                                                                declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                         (2003/C 304/40)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/41)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-17/01, Georgios Rounis, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the                   In Case T-26/01, Fiocchi Munizioni SpA, established in Lecco
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-                  (Italy), represented by I. Van Bael, E. Raffaelli, F. Di Gianni
Duvieusart) — application for determination of the amount of               and R. Antonini, lawyers, v Commission of the European
the loss for which the Commission was ordered to compensate                Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci), supported by Kingdom of
the applicant following annulment by the Court of First                    Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declar-
Instance of the Commission’s decision of 24 February 2000                  ation that the Commission unlawfully refrained from taking a
limiting transfer of the applicant’s emoluments to the United              decision on the merits of the complaint by the applicant
Kingdom to 19 % of his net monthly earnings, the Court of                  concerning a State aid granted by the Kingdom of Spain to the
First Instance, M. Vilaras, Judge; and I. Natsinas, Administrator,         Santa Barbara company, the Court of First Instance (Third
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September                    Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
2003, in which it:                                                         President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J.D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges;
                                                                           J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it:
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant damages of
      GBP 17 394,64, with interest for late payment at the annual
      rate of 5,25 % annually until payment.                               1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action for damages.                   2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs;
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/24                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          13.12.2003
3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.                           2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs including those relation
                                                                                to the interim proceedings.
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 September 2003                                                         of 30 September 2003
in Case T-196/01: Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis                     in Case T-203/01: Manufacture française des pneumati-
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                           ques Michelin v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(EAGGF — Discontinuation of financial aid — Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Error of assessment                         (Article 82 EC — System of discounts — Abuse of dominant
— Principle of proportionality — Reasonable period —                                                       position)
                        Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/43)
                          (2003/C 304/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                             In Case T-203/01: Manufacture française des pneumatiques
In Case T-196/01: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,                   Michelin, established in Clermont-Ferrand (France), represent-
established in Thessaloniki (Greece) represented by D. Niko-                 ed by J.-F. Bellis, M. Wellinger, D. Waelbroeck and M. Johnsson,
poulos, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                 lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Con-                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
dou-Durande) — application for annulment of Commission                       É. Gippini Fournier and A. Barav, subsequently R. Wainwright
Decision C (2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001, discontinuing aid to                  and A. Barav), supported by Bandag Inc., established in
the laboratory for forest genetics and the improvement of                    Muscatine, Iowa (United States of America), represented by
ligneous plant species of Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessaloniki              H. Calvet and R. Saint-Esteben, lawyers, with an address for
(University of Thessaloniki) granted by Commission Decision                  service in Luxembourg - application for annulment of the
C (96) 2542 of 25 September 1996 on the grant of EAGGF                       Commission Decision of 20 June 2001 (Case COMP/E-2/
Guidance Section assistance in accordance with Council Regu-                 36.041/PO — Michelin) relating to a proceeding pursuant to
lation (EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of project                            Article 82 EC (OJ 2002, L 143, p. 1) — the Court of First
No 93.EL.06.023, ‘Pilot project on the acceleration of regener-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
ation of woodland affected by the fires in Greece’, — the Court              J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; U. Natsinas, Adminis-             which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September
2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application.
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 1284 of the 8 June                 2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
      2001 discontinuing assistance to the laboratory for forestry                 Commission.
      genetics and improvement of ligneous plant species of Aristotelio
      Panepistimio Thessaloniki (Aristoteleio University of Thessa-          3.    Orders Bandag Inc. to bear its own costs.
      loniki) granted by Decision C (96) 2542 of the Commission of
      25 September 1996 on the grant of EAGGF Guidance
      section assistance in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC)         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
      No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.EL.06.023 ‘Pilot
      project on the acceleration of regeneration of woodland affected
      by the fires in Greece’;


title: Case C-13/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 11 January 2011 — Maria das Dores Meira da Silva v Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 11 January 2011 — Maria das Dores Meira da Silva v Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA
   (Case C-13/11)
   2011/C 95/08
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria das Dores Meira da Silva

      Defendant: Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a road-traffic accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the road, in which the pedestrian suffers personal and material damage, is the exclusion of compensation for such loss where the loss-causing event is due to the conduct of the pedestrian — in accordance with Articles 505 and 570 of the Portuguese Civil Code as interpreted — contrary to Community law and in particular to Articles 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Directive (2005/14/EC) (4) (all relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the circumstances in which compensation on the basis of compulsory motor vehicle insurance may be excluded?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, that is, that such an exclusion of compensation is contrary to Community law, is the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of Portuguese civil law to the effect that such compensation may be limited or reduced having regard to the fault of the pedestrian, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the motor vehicle, on the other, in causing the accident, consistent with the Community directives referred to?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

      (4)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).


title: Case C-620/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 12a(1a) — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Travelling personnel — Workers posted to another Member State — Swiss branch — E 101 certificate — Probative value)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden
   (Case C-620/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 12a(1a) - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Travelling personnel - Workers posted to another Member State - Swiss branch - E 101 certificate - Probative value))
   (2017/C 202/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

      Defendants: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12a(1a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not fall within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 1408/71.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-340/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for the award of public service contracts — Assistance to the maître d'ouvrage for a sewage treatment plant — Award to the successful candidate in an earlier design contest without prior publication of a contract notice in the OJEC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-340/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedure for the award of public service contracts - Assistance to the maître d'ouvrage for a sewage treatment plant - Award to the successful candidate in an earlier design contest without prior publication of a contract notice in the OJEC)
   (2004/C 300/24)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-340/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 24 September 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) and French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler and D. Petrausch) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by virtue of the award by the Communauté urbaine du Mans of a study contract for assistance to the maître d'ouvrage in respect of the Chauvinière sewage treatment plant, without publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, and in particular Article 15(2) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-207/99 P: Commission of the European Communities v Claudine Hamptaux (Appeal — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
C 28/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.1.2001
(Labour Court, Turin), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the               — application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
proceedings pending before that court between Roberto Vitari                1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
and European Training Foundation — on the interpretation of                 accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants                expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
of the European Communities — the Court, (Fifth Chamber),                   Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999 L 61,
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       p. 37) in so far as it excludes from Community financing
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                        expenditure of GBP 869 283 incurred in the United Kingdom
L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                under the scheme established by Commission Regulation (EEC)
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November                     No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (OJ 1989 L 121,
                                                                            p. 4) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O.
                                                                            Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón
On a proper construction of Article 79 of the Conditions of                 and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Employment of other Servants of the European Communities, that              Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
provision precludes the possibility for a Community institution to          has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it:
conclude a fixed-term contract of employment with a member of its
local staff where that is contrary to its own rules applicable to the       1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
conditions of employment of local staff and drawn up in accordance                1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
with the rules and practice of the State in which the duties are                  States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
performed. It is therefore for the national court to determine whether,           Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
in accordance with Article 3 of the rules governing the conditions of             Fund, in so far as it excludes from Community financing
employment of local staff serving in Italy adopted by the Commission,             expenses of GBP 869 283 incurred in the United Kingdom of
the circumstances surrounding the work, or the nature of that work,               Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the scheme estab-
made it necessary for the local-staff contract between the parties to             lished by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of
the main proceedings to be concluded for a fixed term. If not, it is for          28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
the national court to convert that contract into a contract of                    for fibre flax and hemp;
employment for an indefinite period.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 9 November 2000                                                            of 9 November 2000
in Case C-148/99: United Kingdom of Great Britain                           in Case C-207/99 P: Commission of the European Com-
and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European                                           munities v Claudine Hamptaux (1)
                           Communities (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                                                  comparative merits)
— Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 — Aid for fibre flax and
                                 hemp)                                                                   (2001/C 28/11)
                            (2001/C 28/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-148/99: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by A. Sutton) v             In Case C-207/99 P: Commission of the European Communi-
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver)                   ties (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 28/7
D. Waelbroeck) APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of                 1.    Orders Hitesys SpA to repay to the Commission of the European
First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)                      Communities the sum of EUR 132 500, together with default
of 25 March 1999 in Case T-76/98 Hamptaux v Commission                           interest calculated in accordance with the second subparagraph
[1999] ECR-SC I-A-59 and II-303, seeking to have that                            of Article 8(4) of the general conditions forming Annex II to
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                     Contract JOU2-CT93-0417 from 8 January 1994 until full
Claudine Hamptaux an official of the Commission of the                           payment of the debt;
European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), rep-
resented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             2.    Orders Hitesys SpA to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer, 6 Rue
Heinrich Heine — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rappor-              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
teur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 9 November 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-142/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Tournai):
                                                                                Floridienne SA, Berginvest SA v Belgian State (1)
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                           (Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax — Undertak-
                       of 9 November 2000                                  ing subject to tax on only one part of its operations —
                                                                           Deductible proportion — Calculation — Holding company
in Case C-356/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      collecting share dividends and loan interest from its subsidi-
                       ties v Hitesys SpA (1)                                  aries — Involvement in management of subsidiaries)
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —                                                    (2001/C 28/13)
Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default of
                              defence)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          (2001/C 28/12)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-142/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
                                                                           Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Tournai, Belgium,
In Case C-356/99: Commission of the European Communities                   for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
(Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Hitesys SpA,                      court between Floridienne SA, Berginvest SA and Belgian State
established in Aprilia (Italy) — application by the Commission             — on the interpretation of Article 19 of the Sixth Council
of the European Communities under Article 238 EC to recover                Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
moneys advanced in relation to Contract JOU2-CT93-0417,                    of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
which was terminated by the applicant on the ground of the                 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
defendant’s failure to perform its contractual obligations                 ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber),
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and               and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in                     has given a judgment on 14 November 2000, in which it has
which it:                                                                  ruled:


title: Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Heinrich Gottmann against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/95)

text:
No C 351 / 16         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 12 . 95
Action brought on 26 October 1995 by Dimitrios Coussios               Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Heinrich Gottmann
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  against the Council of the European Union and the
                        ( Case T-200/95                                         Commission of the European Communities
                          ( 95/C 351 /31 )                                                   ( Case T-202/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /32 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Communities on 27 October 1995 by Heinrich Gottmann,
Instance on 26 October 1995 by Dimitrios Coussios,                    residing at Volkmarsen-Külte ( Federal Republic of
represented by Georgios Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar,           Germany ), represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue .                                         Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the application admissible,                                 ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                             applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
                                                                             period from 2 April 1984 to 29 July 1993 , amounting
                                                                             to DM 41 078,16 , together with 8% interest from
— declare the implied refusal by the Commission to lift the
                                                                              19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
     ban on the applicant's entering the Commission 's
     buildings invalid,                                                      proceedings;
                                                                       ( 2 ) join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
                                                                             Others v. Council and Commission of the EC, which is
— award the applicant an amount of ECU 300 000 for                           currently pending, and likewise stay the proceedings .
     non-material harm suffered,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in Case T-20/94 .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant is an official of the Commission who has
 incured the disciplinary penalty of dismissal ; that penalty          Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Bernard Connolly
 has been challenged before the Court of First Instance and               against the Commission of the European Communities
 the case is still pending. In the present action the applicant                                Case T-203 / 95 )
 seeks a declaration of invalidity with regard to the implied
 refusal by the Commission to allow him entry into its                                           ( 95 /C 351 /33 )
 buildings, although he works as a company representative
 and needs to come to meetings with the competent                                      (Language of the case: French)
 authorities of the Commission . In the applicant's view, the
 Commission's refusal constitutes an abuse of rights and                An action against the Commission of the European
 power, since it imposes a second ancillary punishment for              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 which no provision is made in the Staff Regulations of                 Instance of the European Communities on 27 October 1995
 officials . Furthermore, it constitutes a negation of the              by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
 constitutional right to freedom of communication and free              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
 development of the personality . The applicant also claims             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
 payment of financial compensation for the non-material                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
  harm that he has suffered and is suffering as a result of the         Fort Rheinsheim .
  Commission 's conduct .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decisions of 6 and 27 September 1995 and
                                                                             4 October 1995 ,


title: Case C-154/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2010 by Nokia Oyj against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2010 in Case T-460/07 Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/15

         Appeal brought on 1 April 2010 by Nokia Oyj against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2010 in Case T-460/07 Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-154/10 P)
   2010/C 179/25
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Appellant: Nokia Oyj (represented by C. Rehaag, asianajaja)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Medion AG

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment in Case T-460/07;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-460/07 should be set aside on the ground that the General Court wrongly considered in that judgment that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks LIFE and LIFE BLOG and thus applied incorrectly Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. (1) The applicant submits that by so doing the judgment infringed European Union law.
   The General Court indeed found, as regards the similarity of the marks, that the subjects of comparison were the marks LIFE and LIFE BLOG, but then proceeded in a manner that clearly contradicted that finding, by assessing only the component LIFE of the composite mark LIFE BLOG in order to justify the conclusion that the marks were similar.
   In that connection the General Court incorrectly examined the questions of what kind of consumers belonged to the relevant group and how the consumers understood the mark, and thereby infringed the principles recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-511/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna — Italy) — Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Article 3(1)(b) — Conditions for certification — Judgment in default — Concept of ‘uncontested claim — Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna (District Court, Bologna — Italy) — Pebros Servizi Srl v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd
   (Case C-511/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Article 3(1)(b) - Conditions for certification - Judgment in default - Concept of ‘uncontested claim - Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’))
   (2016/C 305/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bologna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pebros Servizi Srl

      Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The conditions according to which, in the case of a judgment by default, a claim is to be regarded as ‘uncontested’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, must be assessed autonomously, solely in accordance with that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-289/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/28

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-289/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 026/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ledra Advertising Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ledra Advertising Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-106/03: Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley against the Council of the European Union

text:
10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/47
concerning the withdrawal of the contribution of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted, in the form of a
global subsidy in support of the activities of an ‘Information             —     annul Ms Dionyssopoulou’s definitive staff report dated
centre for collaboration between undertakings and the pro-                       20 December 2002;
motion of investment’, by Commission Decision C(93) 256/4
of 16 February 1993 as part of the Community support
framework for Community structural operations in Sicily in                 —     order the Council to pay damages in the amount of
pursuance of Objective 1, and the recovery of amounts already                    EUR 8 000;
paid by the Commission by virtue of that contribution.
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
—     Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 4253/88 ( 1) of 19 December 1988, laying down                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
      88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-               The applicant in this case contests the assessments contained
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other                 in her definitive staff report for the period from 1 July 1999
      existing financial instruments inasmuch as the CIS did               to 30 June 2001.
      not wilfully misuse the approved subsidy but was unable
      to supplement it through no fault of its own, the fault
      being exclusively that of the Sicilian regional adminis-             She alleges in that respect breach of the Guide to Staff Reports
      tration which delayed in drawing up the contract between             and a manifest error of assessment. These are apparent in
      the defendant and the CIS.                                           particular from the implied criticism that the applicant did not
                                                                           participate fully in all the tasks of the service on medical
—     Infringement of clause 14 of the abovementioned agree-               grounds.
      ment inasmuch as the Commission should have acknowl-
      edged the reimbursement of the expense incurred, par-
      ticularly in view of the fact that in the present case the
      intermediary was not able to carry out the planned
      activities for unforeseeable reasons beyond its control.
The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of force
majeure, proportionality and legitimate expectations and, in
the present case, misuse of powers.                                        Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
( 1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case T-106/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/88)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European
                              Union
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          (Case T-105/03)                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley, residing
                                                                           in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien
                          (2003/C 112/87)                                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 —     annul the decision finalising the applicant’s definitive staff
Communities on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionysso-                          report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;
poulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by François
Renard, lawyer.                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/48                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               assessor which were favorable to the applicant were
                                                                              removed.
The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his
application.
—     Breach of the obligation as to circumspection, of the
      principles of proper administraion and sound manage-
      ment and of the principles of independence and impar-                     Removal from the register of Case T-100/99 (1)
      tiality. It is claimed that the contested staff report was
      drawn up by a head of unit whose appointment was                                          (2003/C 112/89)
      challenged by the applicant before the Court of First
      Instance. The applicant submits that in those circum-                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
      stances that assessor should have disqualified himself.
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons, of rights of
      defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and            By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Second
      manifest error of assessment. In this plea the applicant          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      claims that the contested report was drawn up on the
      basis of statements by unidentified persons who did not           T-100/99: Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the
      sign it, that the assessors did not consult the persons           European Communities.
      proposed by the applicant and that the second assessor
      gave no explanation as to why assessments by the first            (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case T-750/14: Action brought on 6 November 2014  — Segimerus v OHIM — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/36

         Action brought on 6 November 2014 — Segimerus v OHIM — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)
   (Case T-750/14)
   (2015/C 026/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Segimerus Ltd

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELGO’ — Community trade mark No 1 0 2 92  498

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 August 2014 in Case R 473/2014-4

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division and refer the proceedings back to the Opposition Division;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the proceedings back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

   Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-171/12: Action brought on 12 April 2012 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a turnbuckle)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/18

         Action brought on 12 April 2012 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a turnbuckle)
   (Case T-171/12)
   2012/C 184/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by J. Dönch, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2012 in Case R 1209/2011-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a turnbuckle, for goods in Classes 6 and 19 — application No 9 462 078

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-551/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/52

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission
   (Case T-551/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/92
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Fri-El Acerra Srl (Acerra, Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Todino, lawyer, P. Fattori, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety the European Commission’s decision of 15 September 2010 concerning State aid No C 8/2009, by which the Commission found that the aid measure which the Italian Republic was planning to adopt in favour of Fri-El Acerra Srl was incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present proceedings, the applicant challenges a decision of the Commission which found that aid granted to the applicant by the Italian authorities in relation to the construction of a biomass power plant at Acerra was incompatible with the common market.
   1.   First plea in law: Misapplication of Article 107(3) TFEU, misapplication of the Guidelines on national regional aid and misinterpretation of the case-law on the incentive effect.
   The applicant submits that the Commission misapplied the formal and chronological requirement laid down in point 38 of the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013, treating it as an absolute test of whether the aid has incentive effect and failing to consider the substantive nature of the aid. Thus the Commission interpreted that requirement in too formalistic a manner, contrary to the case-law on incentive effect, and failed to assess properly the documents submitted by the parties.
   2.   Second plea in law: Breach of the general principles of the Community legal order and, in particular, of the principle of tempus regit actum and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   The applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that the formal requirement laid down in the 2007 guidelines, which were published in 2006, was applicable to events which occurred before that publication. Such an application of that requirement is contrary to the fundamental principles of the Community legal order, such as the principle of tempus regit actum, which requires that a rule of law must be non-retroactive, and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   3.   Third plea in law: Manifest error of assessment, in so far as the Commission distorted the facts by incorrectly assessing the requirement for an increase in employment and the energy contribution to the industrial zone of Acerra, and by mistakenly concluding that the project made only a minimal contribution to regional energy policy and development.
   This plea in law is based on the arguments that the defendant:
   attributed, contrary to its own practice, artificial importance to the requirement of an increase in employment, viewing that requirement in isolation from the type of market and the economic context of the proposed aid;
   failed also to assess correctly the direct contribution made to the industrial zone of Acerra by the electricity produced by Fri-El, by not taking into consideration the Italian energy legislation and the indirect incentive effect on the establishment of industry and on regional development;
   failed to consider the contribution made by Fri-El Acerra to regional energy policy, one of the objectives of which is to obtain a specific volume of electricity from renewable sources by 2013.
   4.   Fourth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment, in so far as the Commission incorrectly assessed whether the aid was incompatible under the environmental guidelines.
   In the applicant’s submission, the Commission erred in maintaining that the Italian authorities and Fri-El Acerra had failed to supply appropriate documentation. In addition, the Commission did not apply the incentive requirement in accordance with the guidelines, which provide for a substantive test rather than a purely formal one.


title: Case C-293/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas — Insufficient measures of protection)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-293/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Insufficient measures of protection)
   (2009/C 32/06)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, D. Recchia and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Lack of protection for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) — Existence of activities which may damage the integrity of SPAs and have negative consequences for the objectives of conservation of SPAs and of the species for which the areas have been defined
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to establish and apply a coherent, specific and integrated legal regime capable of ensuring viable management and effective protection of areas designated as Special Protection Areas, in the light of the conservation objectives of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 4(4) of that directive, as amended by Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-423/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-423/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)
   (2007/C 96/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Failure to take necessary measures to close down or upgrade unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 November 1999 in Case C-89/96: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commercial policy — Quantitative restrictions on imports of textile products — Products originating in India — Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 — Partial withdrawal)

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 63/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                                                                                costs.
                       of 23 November 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-89/96: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commercial policy — Quantitative
restrictions on imports of textile products — Products                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
originating in India — Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 —
                         Partial withdrawal)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 63/01)                                                          of 25 November 1999
                                                                             in Case C-96/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                Special protection areas)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/02)
In Case C-89/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes
and M. L. Duarte) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. de Pauw and F. de Sousa Fialho) — application for                                    (Language of the case: French)
annulment of Annex V, on cottage industry and folklore
products, to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
20 December 1995 amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII,                                 in the European Court Reports)
IX and XI of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on
common rules for imports of certain textile products from                    In Case C-96/98: Commission of the European Communities
third countries (OJ 1995 L 323, p. 1) — the Court, composed                  (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,           Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers),                        cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the special
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,                   measures necessary for the conservation of bird habitats in the
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                    Marais Poitevin and by failing to take the appropriate steps to
A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   avoid deterioration of those habitats, the French Republic has
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November               failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council
1999, in which it:                                                           Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
                                                                             wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95                 composed of: L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber,
    of 20 December 1995 amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII,             acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann
    VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on                (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    common rules for imports of certain textile products from third          N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Princi-
    countries in so far as that provision replaces Annex VI to               pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
    Regulation No 3030/93 by Annex V;                                        25 November 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-273/08: Action brought on 14 July 2008 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Ipko-Amcor (First-On-Skin)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/14

         Action brought on 14 July 2008 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Ipko-Amcor (First-On-Skin)
   (Case T-273/08)
   (2008/C 236/24)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Herbertz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ipko-Amcor BV (Zoetermeer, Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision delivered on 15 May 2008 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 281/2007-4 in such a way that the opposition is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘First-On-Skin’ for goods in Classes 18, 23 and 25 (Application for Registration No 4 019 981).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ipko-Amcor BV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘FIRST’ for goods in Class 25 (Benelux Registration No 401 666), the objection having been lodged against registration for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


title: Case T-475/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/49

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-475/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/77
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and P. Gouveia e Melo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               repeal Commission Decision C(2010) 4891 final of 20 July 2010, concerning the parafiscal charge to promote wine applied by Portugal — State aid No C-43/2004 (ex NN 38/2003);
               in the alternative, failing that,

               —

               annul the seventh and ninth conditions of Article 3(2) of the Decision;
               and, in either case,

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               (a)

               Error of law, by infringing Article 107(1) of the EC Treaty by classifying as state resources that part of the proceeds of the promotional tax applied to funding support for the promotion and advertising of wine, under the terms of Decree-Law No 119/97 of 15 May;

               (b)

               Error of law, by infringing Articles 107(1) and 296 of the EC Treaty and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, (1) in so far as the Commission classified the support for the promotion and advertising of wine as public aid without analysing whether it is liable to restrict competition or whether it could constitute de minimis aid;

               (c)

               Error in assessing the facts, by finding that the promotional tax, as a mechanism to fund promotional and advertising initiatives in other Member States and third countries, discriminates against imported products and infringes Article 110 of the EC Treaty, and infringement of the principle of good administration, by not carrying out additional investigation measures after the request for information of 24 April 2006 in order to respond to the doubts that the Commission still had in this regard;

               (d)

               Error of law, regarding the application of Article 108 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (2) and having regard to the principles of proportionality and of equal treatment, in so far as — even if one accepts the legality of the analysis carried out by the Commission in the Decision (which is not the case) — the seventh condition laid down in Article 3(2) of the Decision contradicts the analysis and the conclusions that the Commission presented in the grounds of the Decision;

               e)

               Error of law, in so far as the ninth condition laid down in Article 3(2) of the Decision infringes Articles 108 and 296 of the EC Treaty, Articles 6(1) and 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2), and also the principles of proportionality, of equal treatment and of the rights of defence.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of 6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-291/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two lines forming an acute angle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing two lines forming an acute angle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two lines forming an acute angle)
   (Case T-291/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two lines forming an acute angle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 161/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anta (China) Co. Ltd (Jinjiang City, China) (represented by: A. Franke and K. Hammerstingl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 (Case R 1292/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two lines forming an acute angle as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Anta (China) Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case C-508/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2016 — Karim Boudjellal v Rauwers Contrôle SA

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2016 — Karim Boudjellal v Rauwers Contrôle SA
   (Case C-508/16)
   (2017/C 053/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karim Boudjellal

      Defendant: Rauwers Contrôle SA
   By order of 11 January 2017, the Court (Seventh Chamber) declared that it had no jurisdiction to answer the questions put to it by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium).


title: Case T-820/14: Action brought on 20 December 2014  — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/43

         Action brought on 20 December 2014 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
   (Case T-820/14)
   (2015/C 065/59)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Delta Group agroalimentare Srl (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare null and void and, in any event, annul letter SM/SE S/2622874 of 28 July 2014 from Jerzy Plewa, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development at the European Commission, addressed to Felice Assenza, Director General of International and European Union policies at the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policy, of which the applicant became aware as a result of a request for access to documents dated 19 November 2014, in so far as it rejects Italy’s application for support measures in respect of requests No 6 to 9 made pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and, in particular, those relating to undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses, and also Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2014, in so far as it excludes from support measures, adopted pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea alleging infringement of Article 40(2) TFEU and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, with manifest error of assessment and misuse of power

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that since the same biosecurity measures which have damaged the flocks of laying hens of Imola, Lugo, Occhiobello and Mordano, in respect of which support measures under Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 have been granted, also damaged the applicant given that it had to take supply of those animals culled in order to have them butchered and sell them to its own customers, excluding from the support measures the undertaking which had to take supply of those affected animals in order to market them and including only the undertakings which had bred those animals constitutes unlawful discrimination between operators in the food supply chain, contrary to Article 40(2) TFEU. Article 40(2) TFEU moreover expressly provides for ‘aids for the production and marketing of the various products.’

               2.

               Second plea alleging infringement of Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that Article 220(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for measures to support the market to take account of the limitations to trade resulting from the application of measures to combat the spread of animal diseases. The damage affecting trade is therefore the very damage that is to be compensated as part of the measures taken pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and that damage cannot be regarded as damage which is indirect in relation to the damage affecting the phase prior to that of trade (damage to livestock).

               3.

               Third plea alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and, in particular, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s decision to reject Italy’s request that support measures for commercial undertakings and commercial loss be covered, referred to in the contested letter, has been taken without the advice of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, applicable by virtue of the reference made in Article 229 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which, in turn, is referred to in Article 220 of that latter regulation.


title: Case C-327/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2009 — Mensch und Natur AG v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2009 — Mensch und Natur AG v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-327/09)
   2009/C 282/38
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mensch und Natur AG

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC preclude a Commission decision which, according to its wording, is addressed to a particular person from being interpreted as being also binding on other undertakings which, according to the spirit and purpose of the decision, are to be treated in the same way?

               2.

               Is the Commission Decision of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” as a novel food or novel food ingredient (2000/196/EC), (1) under Article 1 of which Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves may not be placed on the Community market as a food or food ingredient, also binding on the claimant which at present places “Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves” on the Community market?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 22 February 2000 refusing the placing on the market of ‘Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: plants and dried leaves’ as a novel food or novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document number C(2000) 77); OJ 2000 L 61, p. 14.