title: Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v European Commission and Others, European Commission, French Republic v Bouygues SA and Others (Appeals — State aid — Financial measures in favour of France Télécom — Shareholder loan proposal — Public declarations by a member of the French Government — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Concept of economic advantage — Concept of commitment of State resources)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v European Commission and Others, European Commission, French Republic v Bouygues SA and Others
   (Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Financial measures in favour of France Télécom - Shareholder loan proposal - Public declarations by a member of the French Government - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and not ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Concept of economic advantage - Concept of commitment of State resources)
   2013/C 156/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

   (Case C-399/10 P)

      Appellants: Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues J. Gstalter, Agents), France Télécom SA, (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

      Intervener in support of the French Republic: Federal Republic of Germany, (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   (Case C-401/10 P)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, D. Grespan and S. Thomas, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, Agents), Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: C. Baldon, J. Blouet-Gaillard, J. Vogel, F. Sureau and D. Theophile, avocats), France Télécom SA (represented: initially by S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats, and subsequently by S. Hautbourg and S. Quesson, avocats), Association française des opérateurs de réseaux et services de télécommunications (AFORS Télécom)

      Intervener in support of the French Repubic: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2010 (Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04), by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision 2006/621/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State Aid implemented by France for France Télécom (OJ 2006 L 257, p. 11) — Declarations made by a government member and shareholder loan categorised as ‘aid’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 May 2010 in Joined Cases T-425/04, T-444/04, T-450/04 and T-456/04 France and Others v Commission;

               2.

               Refers Cases T-425/04, T-444/04 and T-450/04 back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the pleas raised and the claims made before it on which the Court of Justice has not given a ruling;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-110/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Lithuania v Commission (Community assistance programme for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe (SAPARD) — Financing by the European Union of certain expenditure incurred by Lithuania — Commission decision requiring Lithuania to reimburse part of the amount paid — Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 — Reference to the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Scope of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the SAPARD programme — Sincere cooperation)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Lithuania v Commission
   (Case T-110/13) (1)

   ((Community assistance programme for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe (SAPARD) - Financing by the European Union of certain expenditure incurred by Lithuania - Commission decision requiring Lithuania to reimburse part of the amount paid - Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 - Reference to the principles established by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Scope of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the SAPARD programme - Sincere cooperation))
   (2015/C 429/21)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, D. Skara and V. Čepaitė, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, A. Steiblytė and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, application for annulment of Decision No FK/fa/D(2012) 1707818 of the Commission of 10 December 2012 in so far as the debit note No 3241213460 attached to it relates to projects whose completion has been assigned to undertakings which have been placed in receivership and to Project P27010010.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case F-14/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/54

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-14/14)
   2014/C 175/76
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Carrozzini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the recovery of various sums withheld from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months April to September 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions, contained in the pension statements for the months April to September 2013, to reduce the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled for those months by EUR 504,67 for the month of April, EUR 504,72 for the month of May and EUR 508,38 for the months June to September;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decisions, whatever the form in which they were adopted, rejecting the complaints of 16 July 2013 and 7 October 2013 against the decisions referred to above;

               —

               annul each decision in the note of 24 October 2013 bearing the reference ‘Ref Ares(2013)3327388 — 24/10/2013’ in the top right-hand corner of the first page of that note;

               —

               annul each decision in the note of 17 May 2013;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the following sums: (1) EUR 504,67 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 May 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (2) EUR 504,72 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 June 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (3) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 July 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (4) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 August 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (5) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 September 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (6) EUR 508,38 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 October 2013 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-603/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-462/07: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/12

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-462/07: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-603/13 P)
   2014/C 24/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Galp Energia España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, Galp Energia, SGPS, SA (represented by: M. Slotboom, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal, and/or to annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision in so far as it relates to the applicants, and/or to set aside Article 2 of the Decision to the extent a fine has been imposed on the applicants or to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of the Decision,

               —

               set aside the Judgment and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the Court of Justice;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence, failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding assessment of evidence and disregarded the general principle of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by determining that the Commission cannot be regarded as having found unlawfully that the parties participated in price coordination ‘until 2002’. Moreover, the General Court failed to give sufficient grounds for that determination.

               The General Court misapplied Article 81(1) EC, distorted evidence and failed to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence, including infringement of the principle of ‘ne ultra petita’, infringement of the right to a fair trial and the right of defence (the right to be heard) by finding that the parties can be held liable in respect of the monitoring system and the compensation mechanism and that therefore there is no need to vary the starting amount of the fine.

               The General Court infringed the parties’ fundamental right to have their case heard within a reasonable time.


title: Case C-274/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/54/EC — Article 15(2) — Article 23(2) — Internal market in electricity — Prior approval of the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for connection and access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs — National regulatory authority)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-274/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/54/EC - Article 15(2) - Article 23(2) - Internal market in electricity - Prior approval of the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for connection and access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs - National regulatory authority)
   2009/C 312/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and of Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Failure to ensure a functional division between distribution and production interests in a vertically integrated undertaking — Failure to make the regulatory authorities responsible for establishing or approving the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for access to national networks

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt measures necessary to ensure a functional division between distribution and production interests in a vertically integrated undertaking in accordance with Article 15(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC and by failing to make the regulatory authorities responsible for approving, in advance, at least the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs in accordance with Article 23(2)(a) thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)(b) and (c) and Article 23(2)(a) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Case T-310/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 56/15
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Schneider                           In support of its application, the applicant pleads, first, various
Electric S.A. against the Commission of the European                      infringements of the procedural rules. Thus, the Commission
                           Communities                                    extended the time-limit within which it was required to
                                                                          adopt the decision, in breach of Article 10 of Regulation
                                                                          No 4064/89 (1). Nor did the decision extending that time-limit
                         (Case T-310/01)                                  indicate the reasons for it or the conduct on the part of the
                                                                          applicant which caused it to be extended.
                          (2002/C 56/28)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Further, the applicant complains of a violation of its rights of
                                                                          defence. First, the statement of objections does not tally with
                                                                          the final decision. Second, the access to the file was irregular
                                                                          and the Commission did not communicate all the facts relied
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 on in the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Schneider
Electric S.A., established at Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
resented by Francis Herbert, Jacques Steenbergen and Marc
Pittie, lawyers.                                                          Next, according to the applicant, the hearing officer did not
                                                                          faithfully reproduce the applicant’s objection. Moreover, the
                                                                          hearing officer did not comply with his duty to be objective.
                                                                          Thus, there has been an infringement of the applicant’s rights
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               of defence and of the Commission’s decision on the terms of
                                                                          reference of hearing officers (2).
—     primarily, annul the decision of the Commission of the
      European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring a
      concentration to be incompatible with the common
      market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand), by
      finding that Article 10(5) of Council Regulation                    Lastly, the applicant complains of violation of the principles
      No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                    of sound administration, of the protection of legitimate
      concentrations between undertakings is not applicable to            expectations and of collegiate responsibility within the Com-
      the present case;                                                   mission, and of infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty.
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the Commission of
      the European Communities of 10 October 2001 declaring
      a concentration to be incompatible with the common                  Second, the applicant pleads several infringements of Article 2
      market (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand);                      of Regulation No 4064/89 and infringement of Article 253 of
                                                                          the EC Treaty as regards the methodology applied by the
                                                                          Commission and its analysis of the national markets.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Thus, the Commission takes the national markets as its
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           reference framework but goes on to make a global assessment
                                                                          of the effects of the concentration, without providing any
                                                                          statement of reasons and in breach of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                          No 4064/89. Moreover, according to the applicant, its analysis
The applicant is the parent company of a group engaged in
                                                                          of the various national markets also infringes Article 2 of
the manufacture and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                          Regulation No 4064/89 and is not supported by an adequate
sectors of electrical installations, industrial control and auto-
                                                                          statement of reasons. The applicant maintains that the analysis
mation. On 16 February 2001 it formally notified the Com-
                                                                          is erroneous in stating that the concentration created a
mission of the merger which it was planning with Legrand, the
                                                                          dominant position.
parent company of a group engaged in the manufacture and
sale of electrical low voltage switchgear equipment.
The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision declar-            Third, the applicant advances various pleas concerning the
ing that concentration to be incompatible with the common                 assessment and the way in which the applicant’s proposals for
market and the EEA Agreement.                                             the giving of undertakings are presented.
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
Thus, it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an                     Applicant for the Com-         TRUCCO S.p.A.
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-                 munity trade mark:
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.                                                            The Community trade            the pictorial mark registered by
                                                                             mark applied for:              the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
                                                                                Class      9    —       Application
In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission                                                     No 1043090
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point, in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation                       Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the                       mark right opposed in
principle of proportionality.                                                the opposition proceed-
                                                                             ings:
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on               Trade-mark           right     the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of          opposed:                       No 16147)
    30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
    in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).                                                Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
    the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
                                                                             sition Division:
    proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
    number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).                     Decision of the Board of       rejection of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                                                                             Grounds of claim:              —     risk of confusion between
                                                                                the two marks;
                                                                                —     infringement of Article 74(1)
                                                                                of      Regulation       (EC)
Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions                                                                No 40/94 (1).
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                          (Case T-311/01)
                           (2002/C 56/29)
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                        been drafted: German)
                                                                             Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
                                                                             Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                (Case T-315/01)
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the                                            (2002/C 56/30)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in               Commission of the European Communities was brought
      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade                   on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
      mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;                                             by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
                                                                             Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                     Partners), of London (United Kingdom).


title: Case C-626/10P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2010 by Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 21 October 2010 in Case T-439/08 Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/13

         Appeal brought on 28 December 2010 by Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 21 October 2010 in Case T-439/08 Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA
   (Case C-626/10P)
   2011/C 103/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès (represented by: C. Joséphidès and H. Joséphidès, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 21 October 2010 in Case T-439/08;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 1 August 2008 refusing to grant the appellant access to certain documents in File No 07/0122 relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008 relating to an individual decision to award a subsidy within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, Jean Monnet sub-programme;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on a number of grounds in support of her appeal.
   Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès submits that the General Court infringed her personal general right of access to documents concerning her, the principle of transparency contained in the second paragraph of Article 1 and Article 6 TFEU, Article 255 EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 8, 41(2)(b), 42 and 52(6)). The General Court thus committed a procedural error in disregarding the references provided by the appellant at the hearing to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in disregarding the opinion of the Ombudsman for the Republic of Cyprus of 3 June 2009 concerning the refusal of the University of Cyprus to grant access to the same documents at issue as those held by the respondents.
   The appellant also claims that the General Court erred in law in deciding, first, that the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) was competent to process the confirmatory request for access to documents and, second, to reject the appellant’s plea that the decision of the management committee of the EACEA was unlawful.
   Moreover, the appellant alleges infringement of a number of provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) which the General Court interpreted too restrictively and in breach of the principles established by case-law.
   The appellant also relies on a plea alleging infringement of the principles of good faith, consistency and sound administration and of the duty to state reasons.
   Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008.

      (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2001 in Case T-208/00: Jeremías Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas against the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament (Officials — Application for annulment — Conditions of admission to a competition — Spanish technical engineers — Type of university qualification required — Inadmissibility)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered office is at
                                                                           Cesena (Italy), represented by B. O’Connor, solicitor, and
                          of 30 May 2001                                   I. Vigliotti and P. Crocetta, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, supported by Comité Européen des Fabricants
in Case T-348/00: Artin Barth v Commission of the                          de Sucre, established in Brussels, represented by B. Garcı́a
                   European Communities (1)                                Porras, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Council of the European Union (Agents: I. Diez Parra
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of sums                        and J.-P. Hix), supported by Commission of the European
                              overpaid)                                    Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti) — application for, first,
                                                                           annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July
                          (2001/C 259/17)                                  1996 fixing, for the 1996/97 marketing year, the derived
                                                                           intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the
                                                                           amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1996 L 206,
In Case T-348/00: Artin Barth, former official of the Com-                 p. 9), and a finding that certain provisions of Council
mission of the European Communities, residing in Lenzkirch                 Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
(Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons and J. Vercammen,                   common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                1981 L 177, p. 4) are inapplicable, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995
and W. Wils) — application for annulment of the decision of                L 110, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for compensation to make
the Commission of 17 August 2000 withdrawing, with effect                  good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants —
from 1 October 1998, the household allowance of which the                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
applicant had been in receipt until then and recovery of sums              B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
overpaid by virtue of that allowance during the period running             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 May 2001, the
from 1 October 1998 to 28 February 2000 — the Court of                     operative part of which is as follows:
First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); Blanca Pastor, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 May                1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so
2001, in which it:                                                               far as it seeks the annulment of Article 1 (f) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96.
1.    Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2.    The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foun-
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                dation in law inasmuch as it seeks an order requiring the
                                                                                Council to make good the damage allegedly caused to the
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.                                                          applicants by the adoption and application of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96, cited above.
                                                                           3.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
                                                                                by the Council.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                4.    The Commission and the Comité Européen des Fabricants de
                                                                                Sucre shall bear their own costs.
                          of 11 May 2001
in Case T-178/96: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of                     (1) OJ 1997 C 54.
                     the European Union (1)
(Sugar — System of prices — Regionalisation — Deficit
areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 1996 —
1997 — Regulations No 1580/96 and No 1785/81 —                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Claim
    for damages manifestly lacking any foundation in law)                                             of 2 May 2001
                          (2001/C 259/18)                                  in Case T-208/00: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas against the Council of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               European Union and the European Parliament (1)
In Case T-178/96: Società Eridiana SpA, whose registered                   (Officials — Application for annulment — Conditions of
office is at Genoa (Italy), Società ISI (Industria Saccarifera             admission to a competition — Spanish technical engineers —
Italiana Agroindustriale SpA), whose registered office is at               Type of university qualification required — Inadmissibility)
Padua (Italy), Società Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I.
(Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA), whose regis-                                         (2001/C 259/19)
tered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società Sadam Castiglionese
SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna
(Italy), Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose registered            In Case T-208/00, Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and
office is at Termoli (Italy), Società S.F.I.R. (Società Fondiaria          Marc Boixader Rivas residing in Madrid, represented by
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.9.2001
D. López Garido, lawyer, with an address for service in                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Luxembourg against the Council of the European Union                                                    INSTANCE
(Agents: F. Anton and G. Ramos Ruano) and the European
Parliament (Agents: M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) —                                              of 8 May 2001
application for annulment of the guide for candidates and the
notice of competition aimed at drawing up reserve lists for
Spanish-language adminstrators and Spanish-language assist-                in Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget and Others v Court of
ant administrators (EUR/A/159/2000 and PE/90/A — the                                  Auditors of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij (President), A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;                (Applications for interim measures — Officials — Internal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 2001, the operative                              competition — Admissibility)
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/21)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs, including costs relating                        (Language of the case: French)
      to proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                           In Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget, an official of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of the European Communities, Hettange-Grande,
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   France, Pierre Hugé, an official of the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy
                                                                           of Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, an official of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                           Metz, France, represented by André Soulier, lawyer, against
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities — application
                                                                           for suspension of operation of the decision of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of 22 February 2001 filling, with effect from 1 July
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               2001, the post of Secretary General — the President of the
                              INSTANCE                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 8 May 2001, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
                          of 21 May 2001
                                                                           1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed as inadmis-
                                                                                sible.
in Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer v the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                 2.   The costs are reserved.
(Applications for interim measures — Officials — Reassign-
    ment — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)
                          (2001/C 259/20)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
                                                                           Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Case T-133/01)
In Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                                (2001/C 259/22)
J. R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: J. Currall and E. Gippini-Fournier)
— application for first, suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of the Commission of 12 February 2001 transferring the
applicant to Brussels and, secondly, suspension of any pro-
cedure initiated with a view to filling the vacancy arising from           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the order transferring the applicant — the President of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 May 2001, the                  European Communities on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, Zeitz, Germany,
                                                                           represented by Ulrich Vahlhaus, Rechtsanwalt.
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           decision K(2201)1028 of 28 March 2001 on state aid granted
                                                                           by Germany to EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co Management
                                                                           KG (now Lintra Beteiligungs Holdings GmbH, together with


title: Case T-505/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi — Earlier Community word mark ALDI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/71

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)
   (Case T-505/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi - Earlier Community word mark ALDI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/157
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and Dialcos SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and also those incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

               3.

               Orders Dialcos SpA to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-97/04: Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-97/04)
   (2004/C 94/63)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 28 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.


title: Case C-237/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 2 May 2002 in the case of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter

text:
C 202/12               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Beroep by order of 12 June 2002 in the case of J. Slob                 hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
                     v Productschap Zuivel                             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluck-
                                                                                as
                         (Case C-236/02)
                                                                                (Case C-238/02)
                         (2002/C 202/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 12 June 2002 by the
College van Beroep, which was received at the Court Registry           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob       European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
v Productschap Zuivel on the following question:                       (Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 28 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Can it be inferred from Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC)            of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluckas
No 536/93 (1) that the producer is obliged to maintain                 on the following questions:
accounts recording among other things, the availability, pro-
duction, storage, use, processing and destruction of milk and/         1.   Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
or milk products on his holding, such ‘stock accounts’ also                 meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
being required to contain declarations of the quantity per                  of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
month and per product of the milk and/or milk products sold,                the Community customs territory must refer expressly
or does that provision only lay down an obligation to record                to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
those data as to sales?                                                     compartments?
(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12.
                                                                       2.   If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                            Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
                                                                            meaning that such notification must also be made by the
                                                                            driver of a lorry, or a co-driver also entitled to drive it,
                                                                            who was not aware and should not have been aware of
                                                                            the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 2 May 2002 in the case             3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft &
  Co. KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter                    Is the identity of the person who actually gave the
                                                                            (incomplete) notification a material factor in determining
                         (Case C-237/02)                                    the customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3)
                                                                            of the Customs Code?
                         (2002/C 202/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 2 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co.                Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June
KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter on the              2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom
following question:                                                    Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of
                                                                              NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World
Is a term, contained in a seller’s standard business conditions,
which provides that the purchaser of a building which is to be
                                                                                (Case C-239/02)
constructed is to pay the total price for that building,
irrespective of whether there has been any progress in the
construction, provided that the seller has previously provided                                  (2002/C 202/18)
him with a guarantee from a credit institution securing any
monetary claims the purchaser may have in respect of defective
performance or non-performance of the contract, to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of               European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair              Koophandel (Commercial Court), Hasselt, of 28 June 2002,
terms in consumer contracts?                                           received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                       1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the
                                                                       case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World on the
                                                                       following questions:


title: Case C-584/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des finances publiques v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA and Mapfre warranty SpA v Directeur général des finances publiques (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Turnover tax — Scope — Exemption — Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ — Notion of ‘supply of services’ — Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des finances publiques v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA and Mapfre warranty SpA v Directeur général des finances publiques
   (Case C-584/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Turnover tax - Scope - Exemption - Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ - Notion of ‘supply of services’ - Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle))
   (2015/C 311/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre warranty SpA

      Defendants: Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA, Directeur général des finances publiques

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle constitutes an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the supply of services at issue in the main proceedings is such a supply. The provision of such a supply and the sale of the second-hand vehicle must, in principle, be considered to be distinct and independent supplies, to be treated separately from the point of view of VAT. It is for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the warranty provided by an independent economic operator to the dealer selling that second-hand vehicle covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle are so interconnected that they must be regarded as constituting a single transaction or whether, on the contrary, they are independent transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-249/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union — Investment agreements entered into by the Kingdom of Sweden with the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hong Kong, the Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Madagascar, Malaysia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Republic of Tunisia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Yemen and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-249/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC - Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Investment agreements entered into by the Kingdom of Sweden with the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hong Kong, the Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Madagascar, Malaysia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Republic of Tunisia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Yemen and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
   2009/C 102/03
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson, B. Martenczuk and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and K. Wistrand, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, K. Szíjjártó and M. Fehér, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to take the steps necessary to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of bilateral agreements entered into with third countries before the accession of the Member State to the European Communities — Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Kingdom of Sweden with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and sixteen other countries

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements concluded with the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Bolivia, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Hong Kong, the Republic of Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Madagascar, Malaysia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Republic of Tunisia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Yemen and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case T-564/08: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)
   (Case T-564/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/68
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Monoscoop BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 816/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monoscoop BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001 in Case C-189/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven): H. Jippes, Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Prohibition of vaccination — Principle of proportionality — Taking animal welfare into account)

text:
C 289/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.10.2001
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs of Case C-308/99                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      P;
4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs in both                                       of 12 July 2001
      actions.
                                                                           in Case C-189/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): H. Jippes,
                                                                           Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
                                                                           Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstre-
                                                                           ken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
                                                                           van Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
                                                                                Visserij (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Pro-
                                                                           hibition of vaccination — Principle of proportionality —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                               Taking animal welfare into account)
                            of 12 July 2001                                                          (2001/C 289/07)
in Case C-365/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — ‘Mad cow’                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                disease)
                           (2001/C 289/06)                                 In Case C-189/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
                                                                           (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       pending before that court between H. Jippes, Afdeling Gronin-
                                                                           gen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Minister van
                                                                           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on the interpretation
                                                                           of the validity of Article 13 of Council Directive 85/511/EEC
In Case C-365/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes                of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for
and M.J. Abecassis, assisted by C. Aguiar, T. Ferreira de                  the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11),
Lima and G. van der Wal) v Commission of the European                      as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990
Communities — application for annulment of Commission                      (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 13), and of Commission Decision
Decision 99/517/EC of 28 July 1999 amending Decision                       2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the conditions
98/653/EC concerning emergency measures made necessary                     for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in
by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in                   the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive
Portugal (OJ 1999 L 197, p. 45), in so far as it extends until             85/511/EEC (OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21), as amended by Commission
1 February 2000 the restriction on exports prescribed by                   Decision 2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19)
Article 4 of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November                  — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
1998 concerning emergency measures made necessary by the                   C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents
occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal                 of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, L Sevón (Rapporteur),
(OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and S. von              H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal            a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
12 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 13 of Council
                                                                                Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.                      Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease,
                                                                                as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June
                                                                                1990.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                           2.    Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any
                                                                                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 289/5
      Decision 2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the                      outside emergencies in the area of the Autonomous Community
      conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth               of Galicia does not come within the scope of the exception
      disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of                 or exclusions laid down in Article 2 of Council Directive
      Directive 85/511/EEC, as amended by Commission Decision                    89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
      2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001.                                               to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
                                                                                at work. However, such an activity may come under the
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                                derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 93/104, in
                                                                                so far as the conditions set out in that provision are fulfilled.
                                                                            3)   Time spent on call, when their physical presence is required, by
                                                                                the medical and nursing staff providing services for Servicio
                                                                                Galego de Saúde in the on-call service, in primary care teams
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                         and in other services which treat outside emergencies in the area
                                                                                of the Autonomous Community of Galicia must be regarded in
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                       its entirety as working time, and where appropriate as overtime,
                                                                                within the meaning of Directive 93/104.
                             of 3 July 2001
in Case C-241/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia): Confedera-                   (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
ción Intersindical Galega (CIG) v Servicio Galego de Saúde
                               (Sergas) (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy —
Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directives
89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Primary care
services personnel — Average period of work — Inclusion of
                              time on call)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (2001/C 289/08)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                  (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                of 12 July 2001
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-241/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  in Case C-256/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
EC from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain),               the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
court between Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG) and                              of State for the Home Department (1)
Servicio Galego de Safide (Sergas) — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the                         (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the                   identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)
and Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time                                        (2001/C 289/09)
(OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
is, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                                          (Language of the case: English)
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given an order on 3 July 2001, the operative
part is as follows:                                                         In Case C-256/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
1)    An activity such as that of the medical and nursing staff             Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) for a preliminary
      providing services for Servicio Galego de Saúde in the on-call       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      service, in primary care teams and in other services which treat      The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
      outside emergencies in the area of the Autonomous Community           ex parte Cheung Chiu Hung, intervener: Justice — on the
      of Galicia fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/104/EC       interpretation of Articles 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after
      of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the                 amendment, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC), of the Declaration by
      organization of working time.                                         the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’,
2)    An activity such as that of the medical and nursing staff             annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the
      providing services for Servicio Galego de Saúde in the on-call       Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
      service, in primary care teams and in other services which treat      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European


title: Case C-504/09 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 23 September 2009 in Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/18

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 23 September 2009 in Case T-183/07 Poland v Commission
   (Case C-504/09 P)
   2010/C 51/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková, E. White and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Hungary, Republic of Lithuania and Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 in Case T-183/07;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant puts forward four pleas in law. First, it submits that the General Court exceeded the limits of its powers of judicial review and committed procedural infringements in a manner which impacted adversely on the Commission’s interests. Second, it contends that there was a breach of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. (1) Third, the appellant submits that there was a misinterpretation of the scope of the obligation to give reasons for a decision laid down in Article 296 TFEU. Fourth, it pleads an error in law in so far as the General Court held that Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 3(1) were not severable from the other provisions of the contested decision and as a consequence ruled that that decision was invalid in its entirety.
   In the context of the first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court held to be admissible the claim that the Commission had exceeded its powers, which claim was raised by the applicant only at the stage of the reply, contrary to Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, in itself determining to which provisions of Community law the second head of claim related, the General Court exceeded the limits of its judicial review.
   In the context of the second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the scope and manner of exercise of the rights conferred on the Commission by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. That plea is divided into two parts.
   In the first part of this plea, the appellant argues that, by finding that the Commission was not entitled, in its examination of the notified National Allocation Plans II (NAP II) pursuant to the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, to base itself on verified data on CO2 resulting from one single source (Community Independent Transaction Log) (CITL) for all Member States for the same period (2005), and by finding that the Commission was not entitled to base its decision on GDP forecasts for the period 2005-2010 published in that same period for all Member States, the General Court misinterpreted Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and infringed the principle of equal treatment.
   In the context of the second part of that plea in law, the appellant submits that, by denying to the Commission the right to disregard data used by certain Member States when carrying out its appraisal of a NAP II, and by denying the Commission the right to refer, in its decision rejecting a NAP II adopted on the basis of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, to the upper limit of the total quantity of allowances which a Member State may allocate, the General Court misinterpreted Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC by reason of its failure to have regard for its objective and subject-matter.
   In the view of the appellant, the prior NAP II appraisal on the basis of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC is intended to make possible the achievement of its objective, that is to say, promoting a reduction in greenhouse gases in a manner which is cost-effective and economically viable and ensuring the correct functioning of the Community system of allowance trading. Inasmuch as the right to issue a decision rejecting a NAP II is limited in time, the manner in which the Commission exercises its monitoring rights on the basis of the first sentence of Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC has to be construed having regard for the purpose of the appraisal procedure in its entirety, that is to say, the assurance that only a NAP II which complies with the criteria in Annex III, in particular with those laid down in points 1 to 3 thereof, may become definitive and constitute the basis on which Member States may adopt their decisions on the total amounts of allowances for distribution.
   In the context of the third plea, the appellant argues that, by holding that the Commission ought to have clarified, in the contested decision, why the data used in the Republic of Poland’s NAP II were ‘less reliable’, the General Court failed to have regard for the entire reasoning contained in recital 5 in the preamble to the contested decision and, in any event, construed too widely the scope of the obligation to provide reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU.
   In the context of the fourth plea, the appellant submits that the General Court incorrectly applied the condition governing severability of the provisions of the contested decision when it stated that paragraphs 2 to 5 of Articles 1 and 2 thereof, referring to the incompatibility of the NAP II with criteria of Annex III to the Directive other than the criteria in paragraph 1 of each of those articles, were not severable from those articles. The General Court’s erroneous analysis, it is submitted, led to the finding that the contested decision was invalid in its entirety.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case T-232/08: Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/58

         Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-232/08)
   (2008/C 209/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: F. Probst, acting as Agent and M. Theisen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul decision C(2008) 1283 of the Commission of the European Communities of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as is excludes from Community financing for the financial years 2004-2005 the expenditure of paying agencies in the amount of EUR 949 971,51 on the ground that it does not comply with Community rules;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in so far as is excludes certain expenditure incurred by Luxembourg for the years 2004-2005.
   As regards the planning of on-the-spot checks of recipients, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly complained that it had carried out the majority of the checks in the same period of the year instead of spreading them over the whole year and without taking into account the optimal period for checking certain commitments.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the on-the-spot checks carried out effectively related to the entirety of the recipient's commitments and obligations from the beginning of the commitment period, contrary to what the Commission claimed in the pre-litigation stage before the conciliation body.
   Concerning the documentation of the on-the-spot checks, the applicant takes the view that the mere fact that the control reports are not sufficiently detailed, as claimed by the Commission in the pre-litigation stage, does not mean ipso facto that the controls were not carried out and does not prove that there is an actual financial risk such as to give rise to the application of a flat rate correction.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the non-application of sanctions where there is an over-declaration by the beneficiaries could not constitute the basis for a flat rate correction of 5 %, since the actual level of irregular expenditure can be determined exactly. Moreover, according to the applicant the amount of irregular expenditure is extremely low in relation to the total amount paid by the Community.

      (1)  Notified under document number C(2008) 1283, OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-93/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Savona v Francesco Amato (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
C 200/30                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                14.7.2001
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-92/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-93/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Pavia v Giovanni                           the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Savona v Francesco
                               Giacchetto (1)                                                                     Amato (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/53)                                                                 (2001/C 200/54)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-92/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-93/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Pavia and Giovanni                        before that court between Questore di Savona and Francesco
Giacchetto on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC                    Amato on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty
Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third                        on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                      composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-
er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-               P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                        follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-247/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Oikeusministeriö v Denis Raugevicius

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Oikeusministeriö v Denis Raugevicius
   (Case C-247/17)
   (2017/C 239/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oikeusministeriö

      Defendant: Denis Raugevicius

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are national provisions on extradition to be assessed with respect to the freedom of movement of nationals of another Member State in the same way regardless of whether the extradition request of a third State on the basis of an extradition convention concerns the enforcement of a custodial sentence or a prosecution as in the Petruhhin case? (1) Is it relevant that the person sought to be extradited, as well as being a citizen of the Union, is a national of the State which has made the request for extradition?

               2.

               Does a national law under which only its own nationals are not extradited outside the EU for the enforcement of a penalty unjustifiably disadvantage nationals of another Member State? Are the mechanisms of EU law by means of which an objective, acceptable as such, may be achieved in a less prejudicial manner applicable also in an enforcement situation? How is a request for extradition to be answered in a situation in which, such mechanisms being applied, the request is notified to another Member State which, however, does not, for example because of legal obstacles, adopt measures concerning its nationals?

      (1)  Judgment of 6.9.2016, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630.


title: Case T-568/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION)
   (Case T-568/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 120/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.