title: Case C-229/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Collective redundancies — Concept of ‘worker’ — Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company — Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH
   (Case C-229/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘worker’ - Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company - Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer))
   (2015/C 294/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Verden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ender Balkaya

      Defendant: Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company, such as the director in question in the main proceedings, who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company.

               2.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to regard as a worker for the purposes of that provision a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who, while not receiving remuneration from his employer, performs real work within the undertaking in the context of a traineeship — with financial support from, and the recognition of, the public authority responsible for the promotion of employment — in order to acquire or improve skills or complete vocational training.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case F-42/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations — Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances — No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Demotion in step — Proportionality — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances — Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/49

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission
      (Case F-42/14) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations - Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances - No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Demotion in step - Proportionality - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances - Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention)
      (2015/C 016/73)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: EH (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose a penalty on the applicant of demotion by three steps on grounds of infringement of the rule against cumulation of national family allowances and family allowances under the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that EH is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 45.


title: Case T-247/03: Action brought on 24 June 2003 by Miguel Torres, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
6.9.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 213/39
Action brought on 24 June 2003 by Miguel Torres,                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 Appeal:
                        Market (OHIM)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                 Infringement of the rights of the
                                                                                defence and incorrect application
                        (Case T-247/03)                                                                 of Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Regu-
                                                                                lation No. 40/94 (risk of con-
                                                                                fusion)
                        (2003/C 213/76)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Action brought on 2 July 2003 by ‘Y’ against Commission
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                               of the European Communities
of the European Communities on 24 June 2003 by Miguel
Torres S.A., with offices in Vilafranca del Penedès (Barcelona),
represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, M.Á. Baz de San Ceferino                                        (Case T-249/03)
and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/77)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
      of 7 April 2003 handed down in matter R 0998/2001-1;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 2 July 2003 by ‘Y’, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Spyridoula Papanikolaou, lawyer.
Applicant for Com-            Bodegas Muga, S.A.                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
munity trade mark:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of 18 June 2003 of the Director
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘Torre Muga’                      General of RELEX terminating the applicant’s assignment
sought:                       Application no. 791.004 sought                    to a post in the Commission’s Delegation abroad;
                              for products in class 33(acholic
                              beverages, except beers)                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Mark or sign cited in         International       trade       mark
opposition:                   no. 252.675, Danish trade mark
                                                                          In support of his action, the applicant alleges a number of
                              no. VR 03.741.1991, German
                                                                          infringements of Articles 7 and 25 of the Staff Regulations, of
                              trade mark no. 2.901.360, Span-
                                                                          the rule in the Administrative Guide for the use of the external
                              ish trade marks nos 130.955,
                                                                          service of DG RELEX, which provides that the duration of an
                              321.331 and 130.956 and
                                                                          assignment to a post is to be four years, and of the principle
                              English          trade         marks
                                                                          of legitimate expectations. He also alleges abuse and misuse of
                              nos 1.039.853 and 1.298.955
                                                                          power and infringements of the Community disciplinary rules
                              TORRES, for products in class 33
                                                                          and of the principle of proportionality.
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:


title: Case C-280/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, Hellenic Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Right of access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(3), first subparagraph — Protection of the institutions’ decision-making process — Note from the Council General Secretariat on the proposals submitted in the course of the legislative process for the revision of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Partial access — Refusal of access to information relating to the identity of Member States which put forward proposals)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, Hellenic Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-280/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Right of access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(3), first subparagraph - Protection of the institutions’ decision-making process - Note from the Council General Secretariat on the proposals submitted in the course of the legislative process for the revision of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Partial access - Refusal of access to information relating to the identity of Member States which put forward proposals)
   2013/C 367/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Access Info Europe (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, advocaten), Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Intervener in support of Access Info Europe: European Parliament (represented by A. Caiola and M. Dean, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 22 March 2011 in Case T-233/09 Access Info Europe v Council by which the General Court (Third Chamber) annulled the Council's decision of 26 February 2009 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to a note drawn up by the Council General Secretariat and addressed to the Working Party on Information (Document No 16338/08), concerning a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Access Info Europe;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-463/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2009 — CLECE, S.A. v María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2009 — CLECE, S.A. v María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa
   (Case C-463/09)
   2010/C 63/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CLECE, S.A.

      Defendant: María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

      Question referred

   Does a situation in which a Town Hall resumes or takes over the activity of cleaning its premises, which was previously carried out by a contractor, and for which new staff are hired, fall within the scope of [Council Directive 2001/23/EC] (1), as defined in Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Case T-69/16: Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/14

         Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission
   (Case T-69/16)
   (2016/C 165/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruixó Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the action is admissible and well founded;

               —

               declare that the Commission has breached its contractual obligations and order it to pay the applicant a total amount of EUR 1 634 990,62 (corresponding to (i) EUR 943 046,54 due to declaring the costs of CTT as in-house consultants, together with their corresponding indirect costs; (ii) EUR 96 358,10 as unlawfully claimed liquidated damages; and (iii) EUR 595 585,98 as contractual damage) to be increased by interests under Article II.28.7 of the Contract at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities, in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the due date falls, plus three and a half percentage points until full and entire payment;

               —

               alternatively, order the Commission to pay the applicant a total amount of EUR 1 303 303,98 (corresponding to (i) EUR 753 533,00 due to declaring the costs of CTT as third party resources, together with their corresponding indirect costs, (ii) EUR 73 873,27 as unlawfully claimed liquidated damages and (iii) EUR 475 897,71 as contractual damage) to be increased by interests under Article II.28.7 of the Contract at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities, in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the due date falls, plus three and a half percentage points until full and entire payment; and

               —

               condemn the Commission to pay all the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action brought by the applicant is based in article 272 TFEU in relation to the arbitration clause contained in several contracts signed between the applicant and the European Commission within the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP 6’).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment concerning the facts which result in a violation of the General Conditions applicable to FP 6 contracts and the Financial Guidelines.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principal of equal treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles governing the execution of contracts by the Commission, i.e. principle of good faith and principle of good administration.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2001 in Case C-510/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble (France)): criminal proceedings against Xavier Tridon, third parties: Fédération départementale des chasseurs de l'Isère and Fédération Rhône-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frapna), section Isère (Wild fauna and flora — Endangered species — Application in the Community of the Washington Convention)

text:
C 348/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.12.2001
      Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and                     the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      82/471/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its           J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
      obligations under that Directive;                                    Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2001, in which
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                           1.    As regards species covered by Appendix I to the Convention on
                                                                                International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
                                                                                Flora, concluded in Washington on 3 March 1973, Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the
                                                                                implementation in the Community of the Convention on
                                                                                International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
                                                                                Flora must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Member State which lays down a general prohibition in its
                                                                                territory of all commercial use of captive born and bred
                                                                                specimens.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 23 October 2001                                        As regards species covered by Annex A to Council Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of
                                                                                species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, that
in Case C-510/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        Regulation must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of
the Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble (France)):                           a Member State which lays down a general prohibition in its
criminal proceedings against Xavier Tridon, third parties:                       territory of all commercial use of captive born and bred
Fédération départementale des chasseurs de l’Isère and                           specimens.
Fédération Rhône-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frap-
                        na), section Isère (1)
(Wild fauna and flora — Endangered species — Application                   2.    As regards species covered by Appendix II to the Convention,
      in the Community of the Washington Convention)                             Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 does not prohibit the commer-
                                                                                cial use of specimens of those species, apart from the case
                                                                                referred to in Article 6(2) where the specimens have been
                          (2001/C 348/10)                                        introduced contrary to Article 5 of that Regulation.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                As regards species covered by Annex B to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 338/97, that Regulation does not prohibit the commercial
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           use of specimens of those species, provided that the conditions
                   in the European Court Reports)                                laid down in Article 8(5) of that Regulation are met.
                                                                           Those regulations preclude legislation of a Member State imposing a
In Case C-510/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 general prohibition in its territory of all commercial use of captive
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble (Regional              born and bred specimens of those species, in so far as it applies to
Court, Grenoble) (France) for a preliminary ruling in the                  specimens imported from other Member States, if it is apparent that
criminal proceedings pending before that court against Xavier              the objective of protection of the latter, as referred to in Article 15 of
Tridon, third parties: Fédération départementale des chasseurs             Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 or Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now,
de l’Isère and Fédération Rhône-Alpes de protection de la                  after amendment, Article 30 EC), may be achieved just as effectively
nature (Frapna), section Isère — on the interpretation of                  by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC), Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the implementation in
the Community of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (OJ 1982 L 384,
p. 1), in particular Articles 6 and 15, Council Regulation (EC)            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
L 61, p. 1) and the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora concluded in
Washington on 3 March 1973, in particular Articles VII
and XIV — the Court, composed of: F. Macken, President of


title: Case T-512/10: Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/58

         Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)
   (Case T-512/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/112
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2010 in case R 640/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “DYNAMIC SUPPORT” for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8299869

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment and wrongly concluded that this Article precludes the registration of the mark applied for.


title: Case C-528/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet (Asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 3(2) — Discretion of the Member States — Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views — None)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet
   (Case C-528/11) (1)

   (Asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 3(2) - Discretion of the Member States - Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - Obligation of Member States to request that Office to present its views - None)
   2013/C 225/19
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf

      Defendant: Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Asylum application previously made in another Member State — Obligation of the requested Member State to take responsibility for examining an asylum application, on the basis of the ‘sovereignty’ clause of Article 3(2) of that regulation, where the asylum legislation and practices of the Member State responsible do not comply with international rules on human rights and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Legislation of the requested Member State not providing either criteria or rules of procedure for the application of the sovereignty clause — Admissible evidence of non-compliance with European Union law on asylum where there is no judgment of the Court of Justice declaring that by reason of those infringements the Member State responsible has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to asylum

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as permitting a Member State, which is not indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine an application for asylum even though no circumstances exist which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation. That possibility is not conditional on the Member State responsible under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker concerned.

               2.

               The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present is not obliged, during the process of determining the Member State responsible, to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to present its views where it is apparent from the documents of that Office that the Member State indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 is in breach of the rules of European Union law on asylum.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-173/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — WeserWind v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/14

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — WeserWind v Commission
   (Case T-173/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment in Case T-173/14 R WeserWind v Commission is set aside

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-190/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/7

         Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-190/04 P)
   (2004/C 156/15)
   An appeal against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton, represented by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.
   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               1)

               set aside the order;

               2)

               grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

               3)

               remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event

               4)

               order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defendants' failure was set out clearly in their application.


title: Case C-202/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome) by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome) by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni
   (Case C-202/04)
   (2004/C 179/11)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome) (Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 6 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni on the following question:

      Do Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 and 81 EC) preclude a Member State from adopting a law or regulation which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of members of the Bar, a tariff fixing minimum and maximum fees for members of the profession in respect of services rendered in connection with activities (so-called non-court work) that are not reserved to members of the Bar but may be performed by anyone?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I by order of that court of 11 September 1997 in the case of Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Klijsen Handel BV (Case C-342/97)

text:
C 357/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
     costs .                                                         1 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Kliisen Handel
                                                                    BY on the following questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1 . Does it suffice, for there to be a likelihood of
                                                                         confusion because of similarity between the sign and
By prohibiting the importation into the Netherlands of                   the trade mark and identity of the goods or services
( young) molluscs from other Member States for the                       covered by the sign and the mark, that the mark and
purposes of their being placed in surface waters ( for                   the sign each consist of a single syllable only, are
example, in order to let them grow there ), the contested                identical in sound both at the beginning and as regards
Regulation has the effect of restricting intra-Community                 the only combination of vowels and the — single —
trade and thus falls within the prohibition contained in                 final consonant of the mark recurs in the sign in
Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                similar form ('t' instead of 'd') in a consonant cluster
                                                                         of three consonants including ' s'; specifically, do the
                                                                         designations ' Lloyd' and 'Loints' for shoes conflict ?
Contrary to - the view taken by the Netherlands
Government, the contested regulation is not justified               2 . What is the significance in this connection of the
pursuant to Article 36 of the Treaty. According to the                   wording of the Directive ( l ) which provides that the
                                                                         likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of
Netherlands Government, the objective of the contested
Regulation is to prevent the introduction into Netherlands               association between the sign and the trade mark ?
waters of foreign algae ( dinoflagellata ) and of cysts             3 . Must a special distinctive character, and hence an
deriving therefrom ( survival phases ) which may lead to the             extended material scope of protection of a
formation of biotoxins such as paralytic shellfish poison                distinguishing sign, already be taken to exist where
('PSP') in bivalve molluscs. The consumption of bivalve                  there is a degree of recognition of 10% in the relevant
molluscs containing PSP can, according to the Netherlands                trade circles ?
Government, be harmful to human health (giving rise,
inter alia, to symptoms of paralysis and sometimes even                  Would that be the case with a degree of recognition of
death ). According to the Netherlands Government, bivalve                36% ?
molluscs can contain PSP, because they feed on algae
which produce that substance. However, it has not been                   Would such an extension of the scope of protection
proven that the transportation of bivalve molluscs can                   lead to a different answer to question 1 , if that
result in the introduction of PSP-producing dinoflagellata.              question were to be answered by the Court of Justice
There are numerous coastal zones in the Community                        in the negative ?
where PSP-producing dinoflagellata have never been
found, or at any rate not for many years; the importation           4.   Is a trade mark to be taken to have an enhanced
of bivalve molluscs from those regions and their                         distinctive character       simply     because it has      no
introduction into Netherlands waters does not involve any                descriptive elements ?
risk .  The   Commission      therefore considers   that  the
objective pursued by the Netherlands may also be                    (') First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
achieved by imposing a requirement that imported                        approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
                                                                        marks ( OJ L 40, 11 . 2 . 1989, p. 1 ).
consignments of bivalve molluscs may be introduced into
Netherlands waters only if they are accompanied by a
certificate showing that the consignment in question
comes from a coastal zone where PSP-producing
dinoflagellata have never been found, or at any rate not in
the recent past.                                                    Action brought on 1 October 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-343/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/36 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht             An action agaist the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Miinchen I by order of that court of 11 September 1997              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
in the case of Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v.                on 1 October 1997 by the Commission of the European
                     Kliisen Handel BY                              Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                    Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                      ( Case C-342/97
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                        ( 97/C 357/35 )                             of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht                 — declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
Miinchen I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 11 September                    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to


title: Case T-159/12: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL) (Removal from the register — Pleading submitted at the time of discontinuance — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/20

         Order of the General Court of 3 December 2013 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)
   (Case T-159/12) (1)

   (Removal from the register - Pleading submitted at the time of discontinuance - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Pri SA (Clémency, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and F. Márquez Martín, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: J. Bouyssou, lawyer)

      Re:

   Firstly, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case R 311/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Pri SA and Belgravia Investment Group Ltd, and, secondly, application for rejection of the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods covered by the opposition proceedings.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Case T-159/12 shall be removed from the register of the General Court.

               2.

               The pleading lodged by Pri SA, contained in the letter filed at the Registry of the General Court on 13 September 2013, requesting, firstly, that the General Court state that the opposition was withdrawn; secondly, that it rescind the decision of the Opposition Division of 7 December 2010 in so far as it rejects in part the opposition; and, thirdly, that it order that the ‘release in full’ of the mark PRONOKAL be registered are rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               Pri SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

               4.

               Belgravia Investment Group Ltd shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2001 in Case T-69/96 Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktiengesellschaft and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid for investment in equipment in the combined transport sector — Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 161/13
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 March 2001                                                           of 21 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-69/96 Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktien-
in Case T-331/94: IPK-München GmbH v the Commission                         gesellschaft and Others v Commission of the European
                of the European Communities (1)                                                      Communities (1)
(Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project —                   (State aid — Aid for investment in equipment in the
Interference by the Commission — Delay in carrying out the                  combined transport sector — Article 93 of the EC Treaty
                project — Reduction of assistance)                          (now Article 88 EC) — Action for annulment — Admissi-
                                                                                bility)
                          (2001/C 161/28)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/29)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH, established in Munich                    In Case T-69/96 Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktienge-
(Germany), represented by H.-J. Prieß, avocat, against the                  sellschaft, established in Hamburg (Germany), Zentralverband
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Grun-                     der Deutschen Seehafenbetriebe eV, established in Hamburg,
wald) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                       and Unternehmensverband Hafen Hamburg eV, established in
decision of 3 August 1994 not to pay the balance of financial               Hamburg, represented by E.A. Undritz and G. Schohe, avocats,
assistance granted to the applicant in connection with a project            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
to create a databank on ecological tourism in Europe — the                  mission of the European Communities (Agents P.F. Nemitz) —
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,             application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions,
President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,         communicated to the Netherlands Government on 25 October
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   and 6 December 1995, concerning planned State aids
6 March 2001, in which it:                                                  Nos 618/95 and 484/95 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                            Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili,
                                                                            President, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 3 August 1994 not to              P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
      pay the balance of financial assistance granted to the applicant      the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2001, in
      in connection with a project to create a databank on ecological       which it:
      tourism in Europe;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay all the
      costs incurred by the applicant before the Court of First Instance
      and the Court of Justice.                                             2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Commission.
(1) OJ C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.96.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Gerhard Keinhorst against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-119/97)

text:
No C 228/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
(Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the                  Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Philippe Lammens
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                against the Commission of the European Communities
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.                                       ( Case T-120/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/36 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                     An action against the Commission of the European
    consideration to the possible application of                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
                                                                       by Philippe Lammens, residing at Heme ( Belgium ),
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                     address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
    rejecting the applicant's complaint,                               ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      consideration to the possible application of
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                           Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Gerhard Keinhorst                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 19/97 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                           ( 97/C 228/35 )                             Case T-16/97 ( l ).
                (Language of the case: French)                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Gerhard Keinhorst, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Angela Pollitzer
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                                          (Case T-129/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/37)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    An action against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                        by Angela Pollitzer, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     consideration to the possible application of
 Case T-l 6/9 7 ( ] ).                                                      Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,


title: Case C-30/07: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/38

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-30/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/65)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-509/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Right to privacy — Proportionality)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-509/11) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to privacy - Proportionality)
      (2015/C 073/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Election of a President of a Chamber

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/6

         Election of a President of a Chamber
   2009/C 267/11
   On 7 October 2009, following the resignation of President of the Chamber Ms Tiili and in accordance with Articles 7(3) and 15 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance elected Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka President of the First Chamber composed of five Judges, for the period from 7 October 2009 to 31 August 2010.


title: Case C-386/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2008 — Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2008 — Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-386/08)
   (2008/C 285/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brita GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should the importer of goods which originate in the West Bank be granted the preferential treatment requested in any event in light of the fact that preferential treatment is provided under two agreements which come under consideration in the present case — namely the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part’ (EMA) (1) and the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part’ (EMI-PLO) (2) — for goods originating in the territory of the State of Israel or in the West Bank, even if only a formal certificate of origin from Israel is submitted?
               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

               2.

               Is the customs authority of a Member State bound under the EMA, vis-à-vis an importer who is requesting preferential treatment for goods which have been imported into Community territory, by a proof-of-origin certificate issued by the Israeli authority — and the verification procedure under Article 32 of Protocol 4 to the EMA has not been opened — as long as the customs authority has no doubt as to the originating status of the goods other than that as to whether the goods originate in an area which is merely under Israeli control — that is, pursuant to the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 — and as long as no dispute-settlement procedure was carried out pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA?
               If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative:

               3.

               May the customs authority of the country of importation refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment for the following reason alone, namely that, pursuant to its request for verification under Article 32(2) of Protocol 4 to the EMA, it was confirmed by the Israeli authorities (only) that the goods were manufactured in an area which is subject to Israeli customs jurisdiction and that they were for that reason of Israeli origin, and where the subsequent request by the customs authority of the country of importation for further specification by the Israeli authorities remained unanswered, in particular without the actual origin of the goods having to be taken into account?
               If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative:

               4.

               May the customs authority refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment under the EMA in the case where — as has become clear in the meantime — the goods originate in the West Bank, or should preferential treatment also be granted under the EMA for goods originating in that area, in any event as long as no dispute-settlement procedure has been carried out under Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘territory of the State of Israel’ used in the EMA?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 147, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 187, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2003 in Case C-11/00: Commission of the European Communities v European Investment Bank (European Central Bank (ECB) — Decision 1999/726/EC on fraud prevention — Protection of the Communities' financial interests — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 — Applicability to the ECB — Plea of illegality — Admissibility — Independence of the ECB — Article 108 EC — Legal basis — Article 280 EC — Consultation of the ECB — Article 105(4) EC — Proportionality)

text:
6.9.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 213/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Annuls Decision 1999/726/EC of the European Central Bank
                                                                                of 7 October 1999 on fraud prevention (ECB/1999/5);
                           of 10 July 2003                                   2.    Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parlia-
in Case C-11/00: Commission of the European Communi-                               ment and the Council of the European Union to bear their own
             ties v European Investment Bank (1)
                                                                                costs.
(European Central Bank (ECB) — Decision 1999/726/EC                          (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
on fraud prevention — Protection of the Communities’
financial interests — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
— Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 — Applicability to the
ECB — Plea of illegality — Admissibility — Independence
of the ECB — Article 108 EC — Legal basis —
Article 280 EC — Consultation of the ECB —
             Article 105(4) EC — Proportionality)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2003/C 213/01)                                                              of 10 July 2003
                                                                             in Case C-15/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ties v European Investment Bank ( 1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Decision of the Man-
                   in the European Court Reports)                            agement Committee — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction
                                                                             of the Court — Article 237 EC — Protection of the
                                                                             Communities’ financial interests — European Anti-Fraud
                                                                             Office (OLAF) — Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and
                                                                             (Euratom) No 1074/1999 — Applicability to EIB — Pleas
In Case C-11/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             of illegality — Independence of the EIB — Legal bases —
(Agents: C.W.A. Timmermans, H.P. Hartvig and U. Wölker,
                                                                             Articles 280 EC and 203 EA — Proportionality — Statement
and, subsequently, J.-L. Dewost, H.P. Hartvig and U. Wölker)                                              of reasons)
supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fiers-
tra, and, subsequently, J. van Bakel) by European Parliament
(Agents: J. Schoo and H. Duintjer Tebbens) and by Council of                                           (2003/C 213/02)
the European Union (Agents: J. Aussant F. van Craeyenest and
F. Anton) v European Investment Bank (Agents: A. Sáinz de                                        (Language of the case: French)
Vicuña and C. Zilioli, assisted by A. Dashwood, barrister):
Application for annulment of Decision 1999/726/EC of the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Central Bank of 7 October 1999 on fraud prevention                                     in the European Court Reports)
(ECB/1999/5) (OJ 1999 L 291, p. 36), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                       In Case C-15/00, Commission of the European Communities
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and                 (Agents: C.W.A. Timmermans, H.P. Hartvig and C. Gómez de
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   la Cruz, and, subsequently, J.-L. Dewost, H.P. Hartvig and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:                C. Gómez de la Cruz) supported by Kingdom of the Nether-


title: Case T-71/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Admissibility — Proportionality — Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 — Rights of the defence — Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission
   (Case T-71/10) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Proportionality - Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 - Rights of the defence - Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)
   2012/C 65/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol (France) and Pace International LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, Agents, and assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


C 118/44              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.4.2001
       Removal from the Register of Case T-40/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-155/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/119)                                                          (2001/C 118/121)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 28 November 2000, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-40/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
mission of the European Communities.                                      Case T-155/00, Acheme v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-107/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-196/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/120)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/122)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second                                    (Language of the case: French)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 11 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
Case T-107/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
mission of the European Communities.                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-196/00, Luc Verheyden v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                 Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case T-91/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — InnoLux v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels — Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity — Territorial jurisdiction — Internal sales — Sales of finished products incorporating cartelised products — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Rounding method — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — InnoLux v Commission
   (Case T-91/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Worldwide market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels - Agreements and concerted practices concerning prices and production capacity - Territorial jurisdiction - Internal sales - Sales of finished products incorporating cartelised products - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Rounding method - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   2014/C 112/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp. (Zhunan, Taiwan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays), and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets at EUR 288 000 000 the fine imposed on InnoLux Corp., formerly Chimei InnoLux Corp., in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders InnoLux to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-498/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — (Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.) v (Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.)

text:
                  19.1.2015

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 16/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — RG (*1) v SF (*1)

         (Case C-498/14)
         (2015/C 016/29)
         Language of the case: French

            Referring court

         Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

            Parties to the main proceedings

            Applicant: RG (*1)

            Defendant: SF (*1)

            Question referred

         Are the provisions in Article 11(7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) (‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from:

                     —

                     giving preference to the specialisation of courts in situations of parental child abduction with respect to the procedure provided for in those [provisions] even where a court or tribunal has already been seised of proceedings concerning the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

                     —

                     removing, from the court seised of proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child, jurisdiction to give judgment on the custody of the child, even though that court has jurisdiction, under international and national law, to give judgment on questions of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ 2000 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-439/05 P: Appeal brought on  7 December 2005  by Land Oberösterreich against the judgment delivered on  5 October 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/15

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2005 by Land Oberösterreich against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04
   (Case C-439/05 P)
   (2006/C 48/29)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 December 2005 by Land Oberösterreich (the Land of Upper Austria), represented by Franz Mittendorfer, Rechtsanwalt, established in Europaplatz 7, A-4020 Linz.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2005 in Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 between Land Oberösterreich and Republic of Austria, as applicant, against the Commission of the European Communities, as defendant, (1) due to a declaration of invalidity of Commission Decision 2003/653/EC of 2 September 2003 relating to national provisions on banning the use of genetically modified organisms in the region of Upper Austria notified by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty; (2)

               —

               Declare that Commission decision invalid, or in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Land Oberösterreich pleads that the Court of First Instance both infringed Community law and committed a procedural irregularity.
   In relation to the examination of the plea in law alleging 'infringement of the Treaty' the contested judgment dealt only with the factual elements relating to the 'specific problem'; the remaining factual elements of Article 95(5) EC were not examined at all. However, the Court of First Instance also did not — in spite of extensive submissions made by the appellant which were supported by concrete figures — deal with the question of the specific problem in the detailed manner deserved given its importance to the outcome of the case. The Court of First Instance failed to take into account the fact that the specific problem in the unenforceability of traditional co-existence measures exists as a result of the distinctive small-scale structure of agriculture in Oberösterreich which has an unusually high proportion of biologically farmed areas. Failure to carry out an adequate assessment with the relevant information supplied constitutes, in the appellant's opinion, an infringement of the Court of First Instance's duty to give the reasons upon which its judgments are based, which in turn amounts to a procedural irregularity.
   The Commission adopted its decision without giving Land Oberösterreich or the Republic of Austria the opportunity to comment on the single item of procedural evidence, namely the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority. In the contested judgment the Court of First Instance concluded that the Court of Justice's considerations in relation to Article 95(4) EC, by which it denied the validity of the basic principle of the adversarial procedure for the procedure under Article 95(4) EC, are simply transferable to the procedure under Article 95(5) EC. The appellant disagrees with that view of the law. The fact must not be overlooked that the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in the contested judgment were made on the basis of Article 100a of the EC Treaty, which was then in force and which did not yet differentiate between the retention of existing, and the introduction of new, provisions of the Member States. Land Oberösterreich also claims that the right to be heard is a fundamental principle of legal procedure the validity of which should not be restricted unnecessarily, even on grounds of procedural economy. The contested Commission decision ought to have been annulled for that reason alone.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 296 of 26.11.2005.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 230, p. 34.


title: Case T-575/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014  — Pyrox v OHIM — Köb Holzheizsysteme (PYROX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark PYROX — Earlier national word marks PYROT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2014 — Pyrox v OHIM — Köb Holzheizsysteme (PYROX)
   (Case T-575/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark PYROX - Earlier national word marks PYROT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 194/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pyrox GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Eigen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Köb Holzheizsysteme GmbH (Wolfurt, Austria)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Joined Cases R 2187/2011-1 and R 2507/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Köb Holzheizsysteme GmbH and Pyrox GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pyrox GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case F-110/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-110/11)
   2012/C 6/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the correction coefficient for their place of employment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months:

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-301/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/27

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission
   (Case T-301/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-375/04: Action brought on 1 September 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/22

         Action brought on 1 September 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-375/04)
   (2004/C 262/39)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive.

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 October 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002, p. 37.


title: Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-243/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 15
pilot studies or preparatory action because it amounted to             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
the initiation of substantive action, and exceeded the powers           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
of initiative of the Commission . The invitation was also
                                                                                Case C-243/96 )
unsupported by adequate reasoning.
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/31 )
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of
                                                                       12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
competence, infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                       Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent,
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      prescribed period the laws, regulations and
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 93/62/EEC (') of 5 July 1993
                         ( Case C-241 /96 )                                  setting out the implementing measures concerning
                           ( 96/C 269/30 )                                   the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                             establishments pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                             92/33/EEC ( 2 )    on     the    marketing of  vegetable
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                   propagating and planting material other than seed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission ,
11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande , of                        obligations under Article 6 of the abovementioned
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Directive and also under the EC Treaty,
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force               forward in Case C-236/96 ( 3 ); the time limit set by the
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992                       (') OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .
     introducing Community measures for the control of                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Newcastle disease ( 1 ), or notify the Commission thereof,        ( 3 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .
     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-244/96 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                                ( 96/C 269/32 )
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                        12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the                    Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis , acting as Agent,
Commission thereof. The Hellenic Republic has not notified             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
the Commission of any laws, regulations or administrative              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
provisions necessary to bring domestic law into line with the
Directive .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
(') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with :


title: Case C-123/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2012 — SC Volksbank România S.A. v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Giurgiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2012 — SC Volksbank România S.A. v Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu
   (Case C-123/12)
   2012/C 151/33
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Giurgiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Volksbank România S.A.

      Defendant: Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Giurgiu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘price’, as referred to in that provision, cover the elements which make up the consideration to which a credit institution is entitled by virtue of a consumer credit agreement, that is to say, the annual percentage rate of charge under a credit agreement, formed in particular by the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, bank commissions, and the other fees included and defined in the agreement?

               2.

               Can Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as permitting a Member State which has transposed that provision into national law to allow steps to be taken, in the exercise of judicial power, to check whether contractual terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract and the adequacy of the price are unfair?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).