title: Case T-584/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/27

         Action brought on 4 November 2013 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission
   (Case T-584/13)
   2014/C 9/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BASF Agro BV (Arnhem, Netherlands); BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany); BASF Belgium Coordination Center (Antwerpen, Belgium); BASF Española, SL (Barcelona, Spain); BASF Italia SpA (Cesano Maderno, Italy); BASF Nederland BV (Arnhem); and BASF Slovensko spol. s r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: J. Montfort and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013, amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 22);

               —

               In the alternative, and only if the form of order sought above is not granted, annul the contested regulation, insofar as it withdraws the authorisation for the use and sale of sunflower seeds treated with fipronil;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicants that they incurred in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (1) because in adopting the contested regulation it did not rely on any new scientific or technical knowledge but rather on ‘high controversy’ data. The Commission also ignored relevant monitoring data. Monitoring data that were available did not show any adverse effects on honeybee colonies. The applicants also submit that the Commission wrongfully considered that the criteria of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 were no longer satisfied by the active substance fipronil.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 because with the contested regulation it adopted restrictive measures on seeds treated with fipronil without demonstrating that these treated seeds are likely to constitute a ‘serious risk’ to bees that cannot be contained satisfactorily by other means. Furthermore, the Commission failed to take into account risk mitigation measures that could contain the alleged risks in a satisfactory manner.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of a methodology provided in draft guidance documents, rather than the existing and approved guidance. This way, the Commission committed errors in law, and violated the fundamental principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations given that guidance documents must be available and agreed ex ante, before the review of an approval of an active substance, and not ex post.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation cannot be justified on the basis of the precautionary principle, given that the conditions of that principle are not met in the present case. More precisely, the applicants submit that the risks the Commission considered relevant were based on mere hypotheses that have not been scientifically confirmed; relevant data were not considered; the Commission's risk assessment was based on a wrong methodology; while the Commission failed to involve the applicants in the risk management stage, as it ought to have done. This led to the adoption of disproportionate and inconsistent measures with the contested regulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation imposes excessive restrictions on the fipronil seed treatment without these being neither appropriate nor necessary to protect bee health in the EU. The applicants also point out that with regard to sunflowers in particular, the Commission disregarded that fipronil treatment has never had adverse consequences on bee health.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that because of the tight time frame within which the contested regulation was adopted and the complexity of the case, the Commission was not able to take into account the substantive and detailed comments of the applicants on the technical, regulatory and scientific aspects of the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance fipronil’ in an effective manner.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to explain adequately the concerns that led it to request EFSA to review the approval of fipronil. The Comission also failed to explain why it dismissed the arguments and the evidence submited by the applicants. The contested regulation also fails to clearly disclose the primary objective pursued by the Commission with its adoption.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)


title: Case C-270/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45(1) and (4) TFEU — Concept of worker — Employment in the public service — Post of President of a Port Authority — Participation in the exercise of powers of a public authority — Nationality requirement)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Iraklis Haralambidis v Calogero Casilli
   (Case C-270/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45(1) and (4) TFEU - Concept of worker - Employment in the public service - Post of President of a Port Authority - Participation in the exercise of powers of a public authority - Nationality requirement))
   2014/C 409/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iraklis Haralambidis

      Defendant: Calogero Casilli

      Intervening parties: Autorità Portuale di Brindisi, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Regione Puglia, Provincia di Brindisi, Comune di Brindisi, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato ed Agricoltura di Brindisi

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 45(4) TFEU must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to reserve to its nationals the exercise of the duties of President of a Port Authority.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-80/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                      24.5.2003
The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro-           The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach              in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s                   no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the                      therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other                the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore,               of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which,                that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that                 bars.
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.                                                   (Case T-85/03)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 124/46)
                         (Case T-80/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        (2003/C 124/45)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ruffia, lawyers.
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
                                                                                urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
                                                                                Association Decision,
—     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
      final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars,               —     order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-
      imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P.                  ment’s costs.
      SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
      EUR 16,14 million;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.                 The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
                                                                           mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
                                                                           applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
                                                                           (‘PWP’), in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
                                                                           2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
                                                                           Community ( 1). The request was made in order to consider
                                                                           OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
The present action has been brought against the decision                   Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                               payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.


title: Case T-280/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Perry v Commission

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Perry v Commission
   (Case T-280/08)
   (2008/C 260/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Claude Perry (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Culioli, lawyer)

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

               —

               rule that the Commission acted improperly;

               —

               rule that that improper conduct gives rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community;

               —

               rule that the applicant suffered loss as a result of that improper conduct;

               —

               rule that the Community is required to compensate that loss;

               —

               take formal notice that Mr Perry estimates his loss at EUR 1 000 000;

               —

               order the Community to pay Mr Perry EUR 1 000 000;

               —

               order the Community to pay all the costs and outlays of the proceedings;

               —

               rule that it is equitable that the Community pay the costs and fees of the defence, in the sum of EUR 10 000.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks compensation for the loss which it considers it suffered as a result of accusations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded between the applicant's companies and the Commission in the context of the European Union humanitarian aid programmes for Bosnia and the Great Lakes region of Africa.
   The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are identical to those put forward in case T-132/98 Perry Group and Isibiris v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 1998 C 312, p. 20.


title: Case F-18/13: Action brought on 19 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/47

         Action brought on 19 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-18/13)
   2013/C 114/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new GIP.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of 17 January 2012 on the calculation of the accrual of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

               —

               where necessary, annulment of the decision to reject his complaint of 13 November 2012 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates applicable at the time of his application for transfer of his pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 December 1995 in Case C-267/94: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Residues of starch manufacture - Corn gluten feed - Customs classification)

text:
2. 3 . 96            lENj                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 64/5
      national courts and. may render inapplicable national                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      rules inconsistent therewith .
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
(') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
      OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                   in    Case    C- 16/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ( J )
                                                                      (Failure to fulfil obligations not contested — Delay in the
                                                                      refund of VA T to taxable persons not established in the
                                                                                territory of the country)
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/ 10
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                     of 14 December 1995
in Case C-267/94: French Republic v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Residues of starch manufacture — Corn gluten feed —                           published in the European Court Reports)
                     Customs classification)
                            ( 96/C 64/09 )
                                                                      In Case C-16/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Agents : Blanca Rodriguez Galindo and
                (Language of the case: French)                        Enrico Traversa ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto
                                                                      Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado ) —
                                                                      application for a declaration that, by disregarding the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          six-month time limit for the refund of value added tax to
          published in the European Court Reports)                    taxable persons not established in the territory of the
                                                                      country, in accordance with Article 7 ( 4 ) of the Eighth
                                                                      Council Directive ( 79/1072/EEC ) of 6 December 1979 on
In Case C-267/94 : French Republic ( Agents : Catherine de
                                                                      the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
Salins and Jean-Louis Falconi ) v. Commission of the
                                                                      to turnover taxes — arrangements for the refund of value
European Communities ( Agents: Francisco de Sousa Fialho
                                                                      added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory
and Jean-Francis Pasquier ) — application for the annulment
                                                                      of the country ( OJ No L 331 , 1979 , p. 11 ), and by failing to
of Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1641 /94 of 6 July 1994             comply with the duty of cooperation imposed on Member
amending Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 on the                 States by Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the Kingdom of Spain
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 172, 1994 , p. 12 ) — the Court,
                                                                      Court, composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.               Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.
Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
                                                                      Jann ( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                      Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.                14 December 1995 , in which it:
Sevon, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
14 December 1995 , in which it:
                                                                      1 . declares that, by disregarding the six-month time limit
                                                                          for the refund of value added to tax to taxable persons
1 . annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1641 /94 of                      not established in the territory of the country, the
      6 July 1994 amending Council Regulation (EEC)                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature               under Article 7 (4) of the Eighth Council Directive
      and on the Common Customs Tariff inasmuch as it                      (79/1072/EEC) of 6 December 1979 on the
      provides that residues from the manufacture of starch               harmonization ofthe laws of the Member States relating
      from maize may contain residues resulting from the                   to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of
      screening of maize used in the wet process in a                      value added tax to taxable persons not established in the
      proportion not exceeding 15% by weight and residues                  territory of the country;
      of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or
      other starch-derived products;
                                                                      2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
f 1 ) OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case C-466/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic
   (Case C-466/11)
   2011/C 347/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gennaro Currà and Others

      Defendants: The Italian Republic

      Questions referred

               1.

               On the basis of the international obligations resting upon Germany (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the London Agreement, etc.), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment in Ferrini), Germany may no longer claim, and the agreement reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste to initiate proceedings before the International Court (No 143/2008 General list), together with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000?

               2.

               Is the application of Article 7 of the Reichsbeamtenhaftungsgesetz (judgment of 26 June 2003, AZ. III ZR 245/98) and of the Bundensverfassungsgericht (judgment of 15 February 2006, AZ. 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European citizens from obtaining compensation from Germany, inconsistent with Article 2 of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the plaintiffs’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 until 11 March 2004 (the judgment in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Articles 3 and 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, of the Treaty of Lisbon and with the principle non conceditur contra venire factum proprio?

               3.

               Is the objection of immunity raised by the Federal Republic of Germany inconsistent with Articles 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon in that they preclude civil liability based on common European principles (Article 340) on the part of that defendant in relation to the violations of international law (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State?


title: Case C-574/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Novartis AG v Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Articles 4 and 5 — Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted — Scope of protection — Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/13

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Novartis AG v Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd
   (Case C-574/11) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 4 and 5 - Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted - Scope of protection - Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate)
   2012/C 133/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novartis AG

      Defendants: Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Scope of the certificate — Protection solely of medicinal products consisting only of the protected active ingredient or protection extended to medicinal products consisting of the protected active ingredient in combination with another active ingredient

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a ‘product’ consisting of an active ingredient was protected by a basic patent and the holder of that patent was able to rely on the protection conferred by that patent for that ‘product’ in order to oppose the marketing of a medicinal product containing that active ingredient in combination with one or more other active ingredients, a supplementary protection certificate granted for that ‘product’ enables its holder, after the basic patent has expired, to oppose the marketing by a third party of a medicinal product containing that product for a use of the ‘product’, as a medicinal product, which was authorised before that certificate expired.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-709/16: Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Representation of an angular figure)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/26

         Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Representation of an angular figure)
   (Case T-709/16)
   (2016/C 462/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: La Patrouille (Pantin, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpha Industries, Inc. (Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 11 778 727

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2332/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision inasmuch as it ‘[annulled] the contested decision and [rejected] the opposition insofar as it concerns registration of the mark at issue for the following goods: ‘school bags; briefcases; school satchels’ in Class 18 and ‘[rejected] the remainder of the appeal’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Lack of likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue;

               —

               The Board of Appeal based its finding of a likelihood of confusion on the alleged intellectual resemblances, yet they do not immediately strike the consumer.


title: Case C-371/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on  14 August 2008 — Nural Örnek v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2008 — Nural Örnek v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-371/08)
   (2008/C 285/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nural Örnek

      Respondent: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Question referred
   Is the protection against expulsion provided for in Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council and enjoyed by a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and who has resided for the previous ten years in the Member State in respect of which this legal status applies, to be determined in accordance with Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1), as implemented by the relevant Member State, with the result that expulsion is permitted only on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-455/09: Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/33

         Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-455/09)
   2010/C 24/61
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and Ł. Habiak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of those measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2006/7/EC had to be transposed expired on 24 March 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 64, p. 37.


title: Case C-69/09 P: Order of the Court of 22 January 2010 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl v European Commission (Expedited procedure)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/12

         Order of the Court of 22 January 2010 — Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-69/09 P) (1)

   (Expedited procedure)
   2010/C 100/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N.B. Rasmussen and L. Parpala, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 in Case T-393/06 Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to submit a proposal for the inclusion of the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), allegedly contained in a letter of 12 October 2006 (D/531125) — Actionable measure

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application of Makhteshim-Agan Holding, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl that Case C-69/09 P be decided under an expedited procedure is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


title: Case T-304/13 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2013 by van der Aat and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-111/11, van der Aat and Others v Commission

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/9

         Appeal brought on 31 May 2013 by van der Aat and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-111/11, van der Aat and Others v Commission
   (Case T-304/13 P)
   2013/C 245/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

   Appellants: Chris van der Aat (Besozzo, Italy), Kamel Abbas (Besozzo), Roberto Accorsi (Ispra, Italy), Fredric Achard (Masciago Primo, Italy), Tuomas Aitasalo (Travedona Monate, Italy), Robert Alabrese (Cuvio, Italy), Daniel Albrecht (Comabbio, Italy), Stefano Alessandrini (Cittiglio, Italy), Marlene Alvarez Alvarez (Besozzo), Salvatore Amato (Lavagna, Italy), Angiola Amore (Angera, Italy), Giuseppe Amoruso (Besozzo), Michel Amsellem (Sangiano, Italy), Fivos Andritsos (Gavirate, Italy), Alessandro Annoni (Laveno, Italy), Massimo Anselmi (Sesto Calende, Italy), Carlo Antoniotti (Orino, Italy), Aldo Ardia (Besozzo), Fernando Arroja (Varese, Italy), Karin Aschberger (Ranco, Italy), Andreas Aschberger (Ranco), Heikki Aulamo (Besozzo), Davide Auteri (Varese), Roberto Babich (Gavirate), Valentino Bada (Ispra), Vagn Bak-Mikkelsen (Angera), Simone Bano (Mornago, Italy), Joaquin Baraibar (Ispra), Vittorio Barale (Vercelli, Italy), Stefano Baranzini (Angera), Thomas Barbas (Varese), Caterina Barbera (Laveno), Marco Barbero (Verbania, Italy), Paulo Barbosa (Ispra), Elena Bardelli (Monvalle, Italy), Renzo Bardelli (Besozzo), Jose Ignacio Barredo Cano (Ispra), Marco Basso (Varano Borghi, Italy), Maurizio Bavetta (Cadrezzate, Italy), Claudio Belis (Ispra), Carlo Bellora (Milan, Italy), Alan Belward (Cittiglio), Zita Bemova (Taino, Italy), Enrico Ben (Varese), Jose Bento Valente (Varese), Claudio Bergonzi (Angera), Walter Bertato (Taino), Paolo Bertoldi (Varese), Luciana Bervoets Rossini (Angera), Emanuela Besozzi Pedroncin (Taino), Rene Beuchle (Ispra), Massimo Bianchi (Marnate, Italy), Pierangelo Biavaschi (Brebbia, Italy), Giovanni Bidoglio (Somma Lombardo, Italy), James William Bishop (Taino), Herve Blanchard (Ispra), Ornella Blo (Casciago, Italy), Fabio Bocci (San Giuliano Terme, Italy), Giuseppe Bof (Ispra), Ottavio Bolchini (Varese), Silvia Bombardone (Verbania), Renato Bonaldo (Ispra), Fabrizio Bonato (Ispra), Laura Bonfini (Sesto Calende), Chiara Boni (Porto Valtravaglia, Italy), Isabelle Borgotti (Ispra), Gilles Bories (Masciago Primo), Ann-Charlotte Boström (Cadrezzate), Pernille Brandt (Besozzo), Olivier Breas (Ranco), Norbert Brinkhof (Besozzo), Norbert Brinkhoff-Button (Ranco), Marco Broglia (Cernusco sul Naviglio, Italy), Davide Brunella (Varese), Bruno Brunori (Besozzo), Roberto Brunotti (Ispra), Philippe Buchet (Biandronno, Italy), Barbara Bulgarelli (Taino), Armin Burger (Brebbia), Janice Cake (Malgesso, Italy), Philip Cake (Malgesso), Francesco Calcerano (Brebbia), Erika Caldarozzi (Laveno Mombello, Italy), Maria Paula Caldeira Guimaraes (Luvinate, Italy), Luisa Calì (Ispra), Luigi Calzolai (Gavirate), Cecilia Campo (Brebbia), Jose Cancelinha (Varese), Daniela Cancellieri (Besozzo), Pierluigi Canevari (Brebbia), Elisabetta Canuti (Caravate, Italy), Natale Cao (Ispra), Valerio Capelli (Angera), Philippe Caperan (Ranco), Guiseppina Carabellò (Varese), Manuela Carcano (Besozzo), Giancarlo Carnielli (Gavirate), Massimo Carriero (Ranco), Eda Carriero (Cadrezzate), Folco Casadei (Barasso, Italy), Juan Casado Poblador (Varano Borghi), Silvia Casati (Angera), Anna Casè (Angera), Roberto Cattalini (Cadrezzate), Fabrizia Cavalli (Angera), Mauro Caviglia (Sesto Calende), Mario Centurelli (Travedona Monate), Alessandra Cerutti (Laveno Mombello), Jean-Marc Chareau (Monvalle), Diana Charels (Cocquio Trevisago, Italy), Fiorella Chennaux (Ranco), Michael Cherlet (Leggiuno, Italy), Frans M. Christensen (Taino), Laura Ciafre’ (Monvalle), Ewa Ciesielska (Ispra), Francis Clement (Leggiuno), Sandra Coecke (Varese), Giacomo Cojazzi (Ispra), Angelo Collotta (Ispra), Ambrogio Colombo (Lonate Pozzolo, Italy), Rinaldo Colombo (Angera, Italy), Michele Conti (Angera), Valeria Contini (Cadrezzate), Maida Contini (Leggiuno), Stephane Cordeil (Besozzo), Johannes Bonefatius Comelissen (Cerro di Laveno, Italy), Raffaella Corvi (Varese), Loredana Costantini-Barresi (Besozzo), Philip Costeloe (Varese), Giulio Cotogno (Rovellasca, Italy), Constantin Coutsomitros (Ranco), Raymond Crandon (Monvalle), Marino Crivelli (Gavirate), Yves Robert Crutzen, (Ranco), Una Cullinan (Malgesso), Leopoldo Da Silva Pestana (Ispra), Felice DaI Bosco (Leggiuno), Carla DaI Molin D’Alessio (Orino), Francesco D’Alberti (Brebbia), Gianfranco De Grandi (Ispra), Johannes De Lange (Bardello, Italy), Arie De Roo (Besozzo), Gaetano De Vita (Ispra), Gerhard De Vries (Ispra), Luc Dechamp (Monvalle), Massimo Della Rossa (Besozzo), Alessandro Dell’Acqua (Carnago, Italy), Franciscus Dentener (Caravate), Marc Detry (Brebbia), Claudio Devisoni (Ispra), Wim Devos (Castelveccana, Italy), Lorenzo Di Cesare (Monvalle), Fabiana Di Fabio (Cocquio Trevisago), Michele Di Franco (Palermo, Italy), Pietro Di Maggio (Ispra), Luisa Diez (Ispra), Hendrik Doerner (Varese), Soledad Dominguez (Travedona Monate), Tijmen Doppenberg (Besozzo), Fernando Manuel Dos Santos Marques (Ispra), Kevin Douglas (Brebbia), Pascal Dransart (Ispra), Ioannis Drossinos (Azzio, Italy), Jean-Noël Druon (Cadrezzate), Matthew Duane (Angera), Gregoire Dubois (Angera), Janja Dugar (Leggiuno), Thierry Dujardin (Osmate, Italy), Ewan Duncan Dunlop, Vergiate (Italy), Torbjon Dyngeland (Malgesso), Zdzislav Dzbikowicz (Taino), Alexander Nicolaas Ebbeling (Monvalle), Patrizia Ebbeling Cerreoni (Monvalle), Andrée Ebser (Porto Valtravaglia), Robert Edwards (Ispra), Adriaan Eeckels (Bardello), Daniele Ehrlich (Malborghetto, Italy), Filippo Elio (Gavirate), Federico Ereno (Osmate), Josè Esteves (Varese), Luciano Fabbri (Pioltello, Italy), Natale Faedda (Ispra), Henrique Fattori (Gavirate), Carlo Ferigato (Baveno, Italy), Fernando Fernandez Espinosa (Ispra), Manuel Ferreira (Laveno Mombello), Michael Field (Besozzo), Jorge Manuel Figueiredo Morgado (Varese), Roberto Fioravazzi (Ispra), Luca Fiore (Varese), Gianluca Fiore (Varese), Christian Folco (Ranco), Claudio Fontanella (Besozzo), Vittorio Forcina (Ranco), Marie-Christine Forment (Bregano, Italy), Fausto Forni (Brebbia), Marina Forte, (Varese), Patrizia Forti (Malgesso), Susanne Fortunato (Besozzo), Romuald Franielczyk (Ispra), Alberto Franzetti (Taino), Fabio Fratino (Besozzo), Marco Luca Frattini (Varese), Santino Frison (Taino), Claudia Fuccillova (Bregano), Karen Fullerton (Sangiano), Salvatore Furfaro (Taino), Alberto Fusari (Malgesso), Nathalie Galfre’ Dumont (Varese), Roberto Galleano (Besozzo), Francisco Javier Gallego Pinilla (Laveno-Mombello, Italy), Ana Gallego Romero (Barasso), Paola Galmarini (Tradate, Italy), Stefano Galmarini (Porto Valtravaglia), Marco Galparoli (Tradate), Anabela Galvao Saraiva (Ranco), Gino Gangale (Caravate), Maurizio Garbin (Comignago, Italy), Garcia Luis Garcia Centeno (Ispra), Teofilo Garcia Domingo (Varese), Maurizio Gastaldello (Casciago), Simone Gatti (Milan), Bernd Manfred Gawlik (Sarrebruck, Germany), Marco Gemelli (Massino Visconti, Italy), Cristina Gemo (Varese), Tommaso Genovese (Cocquio Trevisago), Michel Gerboles (Gavirate), Stefania Gerli (Comerio, Italy), Eugenio Gervasini (Varese), Alessia Ghezzi (Varese), Michela Ghiani (Laveno M., Italy), Georgios Giannopoulos (Taino), Peter Neil Gibson (Ispra), Sabrina Gioria (Veruno, Italy), Raimondo Giuliani (Bologne, Italy), Davide Giussani (Leggiuno), Marusca Gnecchi (Gavirate), Joao Gonçalves (Orino), Eddy Gorts (Varese), Caterina Gozzi (Ranco), Jean-Marie Gregoire (Besozzo), Claudius Griesinger (Orino), Carsten Gruenig (Leggiuno), Claude Guillou (Ispra), Jean-Philippe Guisset (Comerio), Laurence Guy-Mikkelsen (Angera), Maria Elizabeth Halder (Besozzo), Stamatia Halkia (Varese), George Ranke (Ranco), Philippe Hannaert (Cittiglio), Isabelle Hariga (Brebbia), Carina Henriksson (Vernazza, Italy), Pierette Henuset Chambefort (Besozzo), Francisco Javier Hervas de Diego (Ispra), Michel Hick (Besozzo), Jens Liengaard Hjorth (Laveno Mombello), Eddo J. Hoekstra (Leggiuno), Johann Hofberr (Laveno Mombello), Marc Charles Hohenadel (Azzate, Italy), Uwe Holzwarth (Taino), Wijbe Horstmann (Ispra), Tania Huber (Cadrezzate), Philippe Hubert (Besozzo), Bogdan Ionescu (Reno di Leggiuno), Henrique Jaecques (Ranco), Kathleen James (Angera), Annett Janunsch Roi (Laveno Mombello), Dominique Jassogne (Angera), Niels Roland Jensen (Ispra), Francesco Joudioux (Varese), Ilmo Kalkas (Cadrezzate), Kristina Kalkas (Cadrezzate), Ioannis Kannellopoulos (Besozzo), Simon Kay (Besozzo), Robert Kenny (Cittiglio), Hervè Kerdiles (Monvalle), Raoul Kiefer (Varese), Françoise Kievits (Luvinate), Agnieszka Kinsner Ovaskainen (Travedona Monate), Manfred Kohl (Cadrezzate), Jan Kozempel (Uhersky Brod, Czech Republic), Elisabeth Krausmann (Angera), Pascal Kupper (Brebbia), Jurgita Kurganiene (Ispra), Donato Lacerenza (Ternate, Italy), Salvatore Laganga (Ispra), Friedrich Lagler (Besozzo), Izabella Lahodynsky (Leggiuno), Gaston Francisco Lanappe (Varese), Ingrid Langezaal (Orino), Eric Yann Lazarus (Ispra), Peter Lazzari (Laveno Mombello), Philippe Le Lijour (Leggiuno), Bernadette Legros (Taino), Massimo L’Episcopo (Ispra), Dominique Leriche (Laveno Mombello), Dominique Lesueur (Varese), An Lievens (Brebbia), Amin Lievens (Angera), Jacobus Ligthart (Luino, Italy), Jens Patrick Linge (Gavirate), Giovanni Locoro (Lonate Ceppino, Italy), Per Andreas Loekkemyhr (Brebbia), Giovanna Lombardo (Besozzo), Robert Loos (Laveno Mombello), Maciej Lopatka (Angera), Francisco Lopes (Brebbia), Manuel Lozano (Sesto Calende), Luigi Lunardi Bizzarri (Bregano), Shirley Lutz (Ispra), Egidio Macavero (Ispra), Giovanni Macchi (Gavirate), Girolamo Maddi (Laveno Mombello), Carmela Maddi Brunoni (Malgesso), Georges Magonette (Besozzo), Vincent Mahieu (Brussels, Belgium), Giuseppe Angelo Mainardi (Brovello Carpugnino, Italy), Sergio Mainetti (Ispra), Francesca Malgaroli (Paruzzaro, Italy), Rosemarie Marabelli (Gavirate), Barbara Marchetti (Brenta, Italy), Giulio Mariani (Ispra), Alessandro Marotta (Varese), Sebastiao Martins Dos Santos (Cittiglio), Osvaldo Mattana (Lavena Ponte Tresa, Italy), Philippe Mayaux (Laveno, Italy), Matteo Mazzuccato (Legnano, Italy), Wolfgang Mehl (Angera), Frederic Melin (Taino), Katia Menegon (Montebelluna, Italy), Giovanni Mercurio (Varese), Eva Merglova (Laveno Mombello), Giuseppe Merlo (Cerretto Langhe, Italy), Fabio Micale (Ispra), Roberto Miglini (Monvalle), Anne Milcamps (Gavirate), Pascal Millan (Varese), Michel Millot (Orino), G. Franco Minchillo (Varese), Apollonia Miola (Varese), Silvana Mistri (Brebbia), Javier Molina Ruiz (Osmate), Umberto Montaretto Marullo (Castel Rozzone, Italy), François Montigny (Barasso), Giuseppe Morelli (Besozzo), Sergio Mota (Ispra), Paolo Mozzaglia (Ranco), Friedrich Muehlbauer (Varese), Harald Muellejans (Induno Olona, Italy), Sharon Munn (Besozzo), Rino Tiziano Nangeroni (Malgesso), Luciano Nannucci (Ranco), Vito Nardo (Angera), Fabrizio Natale (Gavirate), Paul Nauwelaers (Casciago), Remedios Navas Castro (Cocquio Trevisago), Paolo Negro (Sesto Calende), Francesca Neviani (Varese), Nicholas Charles Nicholson (Laveno Mombello), Birgit Nickel (Monvalle), George Nicol (Cuvio), Tonny Nielsson (Taino), Hans Nieman (Brebbia), Ole Norager (Laveno Mombello), Jean-Pierre Nordvik (Cocquio Trevisago), Francesco Noseda (Leggiuno), Gianni Novello (Cominago, Italy), Leo Nykjaer (Laveno Mombello), Franco Oliveri (Genova, Italy), Marco Ooms (Sesto Calende), Marie Oskarsson (Leggiuno), Juha Ovaskainen (Travedona Monate), Ramona Pagnottaro (Parme, Italy), Rita Paiola (Ranco), Sazan Pakalin (Varese), Panagiotis Panagos (Monvalle), Arrigo Panizza (Brebbia), Antonio Pannunzio (Besozzo), Rana Pant (Leggiuno), Bruno Paracchini (Ispra), Sergio Paris (Azzio), Alberto Paris (Taino), Rosanna Passarella (Laveno Mombello), Marco Pastori (Brugherio, Italy), Alexandre Patak Dennstedt (Sangiano), Valerio Pedroni (Besozzo), Paolo Peerani (Caravate), Pierre Pegon (Varese), Paolo Pellegrini (Ghiffa, Italy), Grazia Pellegrini (Brebbia), Rogerio Peralta (Gavirate), Domenico Perrotta (Malnate, Italy), Ugo Pesee (Cadrezzate), Georg Peter (Castelletto Ticino, Italy), Paola Piccinini (Turin), Fabio Pieri (Vasanello, Italy), Ronald Piers de Raveshoot (Leggiuno), Tiziano Pinato (Besozzo), Gregor Pinski (Castelletto Ticino), Giuliano Pirelli (Lecce, Italy), Antonio Piscia (Cadrezzate), Paolo Pizziol (Varese), Maria Carmen Pombo Lopez (Casciago), Wietse Post (Taino), Jesus Felix Pozuelo Moreno (Varese), Marsia Pozzato (Sesto Calende), Steven Price (Taino), Pilar Prieto Peraita (Angera), Gioacchino Puccia (Besozzo) Michel Quicheron (Angera), Maria-Antonella Rafaele (Bregano), Alessandra Ravagli (Varese), Diana Rembges (Travedona Monate), Graziano Renaldi (Porto Ceresio, Italy), Fabiano Reniero (Taino), Patrice Richir (Leggiuno), Alessandra Rigamonti (Arcisate, Italy), Maurizio Ristori (Comerio), Luca Riva (Besozzo), Paolo Roggeri (Travedona Monate), Francesco Rossi (Veruno), François Rossi (Cittiglio), Carlo Rovei (Leggiuno), Mauro Roveri (Taino), Espedito Ruotolo (Ispra), Pasquale Salvatore (Angera), Francesco Salvi (Angera), Ilario Santangelo (Osmate), Juan Jose Sanz Ortega (Besozzo), Juan Ignacio Saracho (Ranco), Gianpio Sartorio (Cadrezzate), Antonio Scanga (Dumenza, Italy), Rita Scardigli (Ispra), Stefan Scheer (Caravate), Hans Guenther Schneider (Laveno Mombello), Christiane Schwartz (Varese), Dario Scotto (Varese), Mirco Sculati (Angera), Arcadio Segura Arnau (Ispra), Gianfranco Selvagio (Gallarate, Italy), Fabrizio Sena (Ispra), Chiara Senaldi (Somma Lombardo), Natalia Serra Francisco (Brebbia), René Seynaeve (Besozzo), David Shaw (Cittiglio), Christos Siaterlis (Taino), Gilles Siccardi (Ispra), Anna Maria Silvano (Casciago), Federica Simonelli (Besozzo), Maria Carmen Simonetta (Sesto Calende), Susanna Simonetta (Sesto Calende), Philippe Simons (Sesto Calende), Helle Skejo (Orino), Birgit Sokull-Kluettgen (Ranco), Piero Soldo (Cadrezzate), Pere Soler Legresa (Besozzo), George Solomos (Barasso), Michel Sondag (Ispra), Sandra Sottocorno (Ispra), Peter Spruyt (Castelveccana), Valeria Staltari (Laveno Mombello), Hermann Stamm (Castelveccana), Hans Jürgen Stibig (Fribourg, Germany), Nikolaos Stilianakis (Varese), Adolf Stips (Besozzo), Elena Stringa (Besozzo), Peter Strobl (Besozzo), Marinus Stroosnijder (Cittiglio), Marco Stuani (Cadrezzate), Luc Suetens (Leggiuno), Ewelina Sujka (Varese), Carmen Helena Suleau (Monvalle), Fabio Tamborini (Sesto Calende), Cristina Tarabugi (Cadrezzate), Pietro Tarateo (Comabbio), Vittorio Tarditi (Galliate Lombardo, Italy), G. Piero Tartaglia (Varese), Adrien Taruffi (Leggiuno), Fabio Taucer (Milan), Simona Tavazzi (Ispra), Nigel Georg Taylor (Varese), Roberto Tedeschi (Gavirate), Pierluigi Tenuta (Cadrezzate), An Thijs (Bardello), Mary Claude Thiriat (Ispra), Lionel Thoquer (Leggiuno), Philippe Thunis (Besozzo), Friedemann Timm (Castelveccana), Paolo Timossi (Arquata Scrivia, Italy), Daniel Tirelli (Taino), Salvatore Tirendi (Travedona Monate), Charles Edouard Tixier (Ranco), Daniela Toccafondi (Ispra), Andrea Tognoli (Varese), Pilade Tonini (Ispra), Katalin Toth (Cittiglio), Jutta Triebe (Varano Borghi), Georgios Tzamalis (Athens, Greece), Enrico Vaccarezza (Mercallo, Italy), Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate), Nadia Valentini (Varese), Angelo Valli (Biandronno), Massimo Valsesia (Paruzzaro), Geertruida Van Os (Varese), Diederik Van Regenmortel (Leggiuno), Serge Vanacker (Besozzo), Sabrina Vanelli (Vergiate), Ludo Vanvolsem (Halle, Belgium), Antonio Vargiu (Cagliari, Italy), Roberto Vasselli (Varese), Patricia Vedovatto (Besozzo), Stefano Venanzi (Bologna), Stefano Venturini (Brenta), Jean Verdebout (Ixelles, Belgium), Cristina Versino (Varese), Ana Lisa Vetere Arellano (Taino), Christina Vlassis (Taino), Vincenzo Vocino (Varese), Jürgen Vogt (Brebbia), Massimiliano Voinich (Besozzo), David Walker (Ranco), Uwe Weng (Besozzo), Helmuth Willers (Besozzo), Ulrike Winter (Ispra), Clemens Wittwehr (Laveno Mombello), Jan Wollgast (Travedona Monate), Maureen Wood (Cuveglio, Italy), Nikolaos Zampoukas (Sesto Calende), Marco Zanni, (Sovere, Italy), Giuseppe Zibordi (Gavirate), Carlo Zonca (Arona, Italy), Salvatore Zoppeddu (Sangiano), Antonio Zorzan (Leggiuno) and Valerie Zuang (Casciago) (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 in Case F-111/11 Chris Van der Aat and Others v European Commission;

               —

               Giving judgment itself,

               —

               Declare illegal Article 1 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and the methodological manual referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 1445/2007 of 11 December 2007;

               —

               Declare illegal Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 fixing the correction coefficient for the calculation of the remuneration of staff assigned to Varese at 92.3;

               —

               Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements drawn up on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants put forward the following grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal, when it examined the plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, erred in law in holding that the Commission could confine itself to referring to Regulation No 1239/2010 (1) to substantiate its decision to apply a correction coefficient reduced by 4.8 percentage points to 92.3 % for the calculation of the appellants’ salaries in Varese, even though the Commission played a decisive role in the laying down of those weightings by assessing the statistical data and the methods used to set those coefficients. Thus, the Commission did not merely apply an act of general application without exercising discretion (paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal, when it examined the plea in law alleging breach of the right of access to documents, erred in law in holding that the Commission had no obligation to communicate the information requested by the staff representatives, members of the ‘Technical Group on Salaries’ (TGS), then by the appellants, in response to their claim. Inter alia, the appellants submit that:

                           —

                           in so doing, the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued, inter alia, the nature of the contested acts, the complex procedure by which the correction coefficients are set which justifies the creation of a TGS, the very existence of that TGS and the subject-matter of the pre-litigation procedure;

                           —

                           the procedure recommended by the Civil Service Tribunal, which requires that the parties concerned must submit a request for access to documents outside the TGS and apply the remedies available to them, breaches the right to an effective remedy given the period in which the access to the documents could be obtained and as the analysis of the technical data will be difficult to carry out by the hundreds of agents concerned individually;

                           —

                           that position further misconstrues the ‘effectiveness’ of the constitution of a TGS and the nature of the lex specialis of the statutory remedies established to contest correction coefficients affecting remuneration.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal, when it examined the plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, erred in law:

                           —

                           in holding that the disparity between the cost of living in Brussels and that in Varese, on the one hand, and the reduction of the correction coefficient of Varese as established by Regulation No 1239/2010, on the other, is not enough to support a conclusion that there was a manifest error of assessment and

                           —

                           in requiring that the appellants submit data as relevant and precise as that which only the Commission possesses even though the case-law does not require the production of a body of evidence sufficiently probative as to reverse the burden of proof and the presumption of legality of the contested coefficient.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2010 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2010 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-387/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/39

         Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-387/14)
   2014/C 261/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1852/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 979 359

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.


title: Case C-398/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 4 — Secondary treatment or equivalent — Annex I, Sections B and D)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-398/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 4 - Secondary treatment or equivalent - Annex I, Sections B and D))
   (2016/C 106/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Reis Silva and J. Brito e Silva, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not ensuring that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants were subject to an adequate level of treatment, meeting the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in the agglomerations of Alvalade, Odemira, Pereira do Campo, Vila Verde (PTAGL 420), Mação, Pontével, Castro Daire, Arraiolos, Ferreira do Alentejo, Vidigueira, Alcácer do Sal, Amareleja, Monchique, Montemor-o-Novo, Grândola, Estremoz, Maceira, Portel, Viana do Alentejo, Cinfães, Ponte de Reguengo, Canas de Senhorim, Repeses, Vila Viçosa, Santa Comba Dão, Tolosa, Loriga, Cercal, Vale de Santarém, Castro Verde, Almodôvar, Amares/Ferreiras, Mogadouro, Melides, Vila Verde (PTAGL 421), Serpa, Vendas Novas, Vila de Prado, Nelas, Vila Nova de São Bento, Santiago do Cacém, Alter do Chão, Tábua and Mangualde, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-255/05: Action brought on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/12

         Action brought on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-255/05)
   (2005/C 205/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agent, and by F. Louis and A. Capobianco, lawyers.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) and under Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (3)

                           —

                           inasmuch as it did not subject, prior to granting construction consent, the project for the third ASM Brescia incinerator line, which is a plant listed in Annex I to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended; and

                           —

                           inasmuch as it did not make the application for a permit to operate the third Brescia incinerator line available at one or more locations accessible to the public for an appropriate period to enable it to comment thereon before the competent authority reached a decision, and did not make available to the public that decision and a copy of the permit;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   ASM Brescia SpA operates an incinerator which comprises two lines and was authorised in 1993. Before 1993, however, ASM Brescia SpA developed a ‘third line’ of waste incinerators.
   The third line of the Brescia incinerator is classified as a plant which carries out recovery operations as provided for in Point R 1 of Annex IIB to Directive 75/442//EEC and has a capacity of over 100 tonnes per day. As such, it should have been subject to the environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) procedures within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended.
   However, the development project for the third line was never subject either to the EIA procedure or to specific examination (checks that an EIA is required). That has also been confirmed by the Italian authorities. The Italian legislation does not, in fact, provide for a general EIA requirement for waste processing plants in accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC, but contains wide exceptions which restrict considerably the scope of that directive.
   The Commission submits that the exclusion of plants which carry out recovery activities from the EIA procedures has no basis in Community legislation and is therefore a clear infringement thereof.
   With regard to Article 12 of Directive 2000/76/EC, the Commission complains that the Italian authorities did not publish the application for a permit to operate the third incinerator line and the respective authorisation measure in accordance with the provisions of that article.

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

      (2)  OJ L 73 of 14.03.1997, p. 5.

      (3)  OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 91.


title: Case C-448/11 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by SNIA SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/29

         Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by SNIA SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission
   (Case C-448/11 P)
   2011/C 311/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: SNIA SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment dismissing SNIA SpA’s application and, accordingly, annul Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in so far as it includes SNIA SpA among the addressees of the decision, imposing on it, jointly and severally with Caffaro Srl, a fine of EUR 1 078 million;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision in accordance with any guidance and criteria which the Court is minded to provide in the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first ground of appeal, SNIA claims that the General Court erred in law in that it automatically assumed that SNIA was liable on the basis that it had merged with Caffaro SpA and misapplied the rules governing the attribution of liability in competition matters, in particular with regard to what is referred to as the criterion of ‘economic continuity’, and the rules relating to the burden of proof. According to the appellant, the court at first instance also incorrectly categorised the case and distorted some of the evidence.
   By its second ground of appeal, SNIA claims that the judgment under appeal failed to establish the inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision with regard to the merger of SNIA and Caffaro SpA. In particular, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed and misapplied Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) breach of its rights of defence and incorrect legal characterisation and distortion of the facts and evidence.
   By the third ground of appeal, SNIA alleges misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, incorrect appraisal of the evidence such as distort its content and scope and breach of the rights of the defence. In particular, the appellant criticises the judgment under appeal in that if failed to establish that the reasons given in the contested decision were inadequate and contradictory, in so far as it concluded that SNIA was jointly and severally liable. Moreover, the appellant claims ‘distortion’ of the content of the contested decision and breach of its rights of defence, since the General Court found that it was liable on the basis of factors upon which SNIA did not have the opportunity to comment, either during the administrative procedure or the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1. p. 1.


               12.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/5

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 12 June 2017 in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)
   (Case E-5/17)
   (2017/C 341/06)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 June 2017 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) on the following question:
   In the light of the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 have not been incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area, can a supplementary protection certificate under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 be issued for a medicinal product if the period which has elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Economic Area is less than five years?


title: Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P) (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Tax system — Corporation tax — Deduction — Amortisation of goodwill resulting from acquisitions by undertakings resident for tax purposes in Spain of shareholdings of at least 5 % in undertakings resident for tax purposes outside Spain — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P)
   (Joined Cases C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporation tax - Deduction - Amortisation of goodwill resulting from acquisitions by undertakings resident for tax purposes in Spain of shareholdings of at least 5 % in undertakings resident for tax purposes outside Spain - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity))
   (2017/C 053/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: World Duty Free Group SA, formerly Autogrill España SA (C-20/15 P), Banco Santander SA, Santusa Holding SL (C-21/15 P) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, abogados)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents) Ireland (represented by: G. Hodge and E. Creedon, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister, and A. Goodman, Barrister), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 7 November 2014, Autogrill España v Commission (T-219/10, EU:T:2014:939), and of 7 November 2014, Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (T-399/11, EU:T:2014:938);

               2.

               Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case T-418/12: Order of the General Court of 19 February 2013 — Beninca v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action had been brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/27

         Order of the General Court of 19 February 2013 — Beninca v Commission
   (Case T-418/12) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 108/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 27 July 2012 refusing access to a document.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Jürgen Beninca.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case T-671/13: Action brought on 17 December 2013 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/40

         Action brought on 17 December 2013 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission
   (Case T-671/13)
   2014/C 52/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat agricole Confédération paysanne (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 9 October 2013 in which the Commission declared inadmissible:

                           —

                           The request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013 L 139, p. 12);

                           —

                           The request for internal review of the omission of the Commission to set a complete ban on clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention). The provisions applied by the Commission, Article 10 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation (1), are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in the Aarhus Regulation should have led the Commission to not applying the criteria referred to in the contested decision and to declare the requests for internal review admissible.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ and ‘administrative omission’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the illegal definitions laid down in Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation. The Commission thus acted in breach of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and the obligation to act in a Convention compliant way.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) no 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)


title: Case T-4/09: Action brought on 5 January 2009 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/46

         Action brought on 5 January 2009 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit)
   (Case T-4/09)
   (2009/C 55/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: UniCredit SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, lawyer, and R. Floridia, 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: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 3 November 2008 in Case R 1449/2006-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B 699.746.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Multi-coloured figurative mark ‘1 UniCredit’ (the number one being 45° inclined to the right and impressed on the spherical logo) (registration application No 2.911.105), for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UniSECTOR’, ‘UniDynamicFonds’ and ‘UniGarant’, for services in Classes 35 and 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of the services in Class 36.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant argues that the contested decision did not take account of the powers of perception of the public at which the services covered are directed or of the non-existent or minimal distinctiveness of the prefix ‘Uni’.


title: Case C-214/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Proia

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Proia
   (Case C-214/14)
   2014/C 292/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Giuseppe Proia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case C-584/14: Action brought on 18 December 2014  — Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/7

         Action brought on 18 December 2014 — Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-584/14)
   (2015/C 081/09)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 September 2009 in Case C-286/08 Commission v Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a proposed penalty payment of EUR 72  864,00 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-286/08, from the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-286/08;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 8  096,00 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-286/08 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-286/08 has been complied with, if earlier;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In its judgment delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case C-286/08 Commission v Greece, ruled as follows:
               ‘The Court:

                           1.

                           Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

                                       —

                                       by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste characterised by the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health, and

                                       —

                                       by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste and Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 (2) on the landfill of waste, failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12, second, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689, read in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12, and, third, Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31.

                           2.

                           Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.’

               2.

               The Commission initiated an infringement procedure against the Hellenic Republic in relation to its compliance with the abovementioned judgment of the Court on the basis of Article 260 TFEU. On the basis of the information provided by the Hellenic Republic and in particular, according to the data for 2009, which was submitted to the Commission with the reply of 16 May 2011, it appears that the total production of hazardous waste for 2011 amounts to 1 84  863,50 tonnes, that the historical waste is in the order of 3 23  452,40 tonnes and that exports amount to 5  147,40 tonnes. It follows from the above that there has been no compliance with the judgment of the Court in Case С-286/08, seven or more years after its delivery.

               3.

               The Commission consequently brings proceedings before the Court, in accordance with Article 260(2) TFEU, which provides that, where the Commission brings a case before the Court when a Member State has not taken the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court within the period defined by the Commission, then the Commission is to specify the amount of the penalty payment and/or lump sum which it considers should be paid by the Member State, and which the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances. The final decision on the imposition of the penalties provided for by Article 260 TFEU is to be taken by the Court, which in this case has unlimited jurisdiction.

               4.

               The Commission, applying the criteria which it set out in its Communication of 13/12/2005 (as updated on 17/09/2014) on the application of Article 260 TFEU, claims that the Court should declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 September 2009 in Case C-286/08 Commission v Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU, order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a proposed penalty payment of EUR 72  864,00 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-286/08, from the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-286/08, order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 8  096,00 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-286/08 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-286/08 has been complied with, if earlier, and order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ L 182, 16.7. 1999, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p 20.


title: Case C-193/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) Second Chamber, by order of that court of 17 March 2004 in the case of Fazenda Pública e Organon Portuguesa – Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos, Lda

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) Second Chamber, by order of that court of 17 March 2004 in the case of Fazenda Pública e Organon Portuguesa – Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos, Lda
   (Case C-193/04)
   (2004/C 156/18)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Tribunal) (Portugal) received at the Court Registry on 26 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Pública e Organon Portuguesa – Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos, Lda on the following questions:

               —

               Are the fees charged in respect of the drawing-up of a notarial document attesting to the sale of company shares covered by Article 4(3) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC ? (1)

               —

               Is Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 3(c) of the table of notarial charges, approved by Order No 996/98 of 25 November 1998, in the version in force at the material time, compatible with Article 10(c) and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 inasmuch as it provides for fees in an unlimited amount for documents drawn up in respect of the sale of shares, which are fixed exclusively by reference to the value of the shares being sold, without being subject to any limit whatever and irrespective of the value of the service provided ?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (English Special Edition: Series I Chapter 1969(II) p. 412)


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Heidelberger Zement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-42/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 101 / 17
           applicant bears no relation to the facts upon which       Substantive defects
           it relies;
                                                                     The Commission erred in its demarcation of the relevant
       3 , the Commission erred in its determination of the
                                                                     geographical markets; for that reason alone, its findings
           basis on which the fine was to be imposed .               regarding restriction of competition were incorrect.
                                                                     The Commission sought to bracket together all agreements
                                                                     and practices into a 'single and continuing agreement',
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Heidelberger                   without stating any reasons therefor . In so doing, it
Zement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the              construed — wrongly in law — a network of ostensible
                      European Communities                           connections, and thus of possible imputations.
                          (Case T-42/95 )                            The conduct of other undertakings or associations of
                           ( 95/C 101 /35                            undertakings cannot be imputed to the applicant as regards
                                                                     membership of an association of undertakings .
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     The Commission is unable to prove the existence of any
An action against the Commission of the European                     'agreement on non-transhipment to domestic markets'. The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Commission has no evidence to show that the information
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                  emerging from the meetings between the Head Delegates
1995 by Heidelberger Zement Aktiengesellschaft of                    was passed on to, and acted upon by, the applicant. No
Heidelberg ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by            evidence has been adduced to show that the duration of any
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, and Hans-Jorg              agreement extended beyond 10 June 1985 .
Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                    Nor is the Commission able to prove the existence of any
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe .                                              agreement or concerted practice restricting cross-border
                                                                     trade between Germany and France.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Articles 173            The Commission's allegation regarding participation in
     and 174 of the EC Treaty, the Decision of the                   agreements for the setting-up of the European Task Force
     Commission of 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126                ( ETF ) and a joint trading company, and in concerted
     and 33.322 — Cement), in so far as it concerns the              practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi as a customer
     applicant,                                                      from the Greek producers, are based solely on the presence
                                                                     of Heidelberger Zement at a meeting in Rome . Nothing
— in the alternative, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation           impermissible was discussed or predetermined at that
     No 17 of 6 February 1962, vary Article 9 of the decision,       meeting. The Commission is unable to adduce any other
     in so far as it concerns the applicant, so as to cancel or      evidence .
     considerably reduce the fine imposed on the
     applicant,                                                      The Commission has not given reasons for the size of the
                                                                     fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, it has failed to
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) of the          fulfil its obligation to determine the amount of fines on an
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to pay       individual basis, in that it failed to take into consideration
     the costs of the proceedings necessarily incurred by the        the individual conduct of Heidelberger Zement and its
     applicant.                                                      position within the alleged cartel . Consequently, the fine has
                                                                     been invalidly imposed .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Procedural defects
The applicant objects that the statement of objections
communicated to it was incomplete and unclear . It was
expressed in such blanket terms ('the European cement
producers ') that the applicant was unable to identify               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Aalborg
specifically which aspects of its conduct were the subject of        Portland A/S against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
complaint.
                                                                                ( Case T-44/95 )
The grant of access to the documentation was dealt with in a
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /36 )
discriminatory way. It was limited merely to part of the
documentation, without adequate reasons being given.
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Danish)
From the outset, the periods prescribed for replying to the
statement of objections were too short.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
At the oral hearing, the applicant's right to participate, and       Communities was brought before the Court of First
to an even greater extent its right to make oral statements,         Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
was restricted .                                                     1995 by Aalborg Portland A/S, Aalborg (Denmark),


title: Case T-901/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/40

         Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Elche Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-901/16)
   (2017/C 053/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (Elche, Spain) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/CP), by which Spain granted aid to Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (and other football clubs), in particular as regards Elche CF;

               —

               annul Article 1 of the decision in respect of measure 3;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the State aid in respect of measure 3 by Elche CF;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and reasoning in the identification of the aid measure and of the beneficiary, in holding that the loan guarantees issued by the Instituto Valenciano de Finanzas (Valencian Institute for Finance) (IVF) in favour of Fundación Elche CF had as their beneficiary, within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, Elche CF.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU and failure to state reasons in respect of the classification as State aid of the loan guarantees granted by the IVF to the Fundación Elche CF. The Commission has not demonstrated imputability to the State, that it has conferred an advantage and that that advantage is selective and has not evaluated the distortion of competition nor given sufficient reasons regarding the effect on trade within the European Economic Area.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU in the quantification of the aid and the amount of aid to be recovered.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU in the assessment of the compatibility of the aid and the application of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.