title: Case C-132/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Difference of treatment on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — General principles of European Union law — Collective agreement — Failure to take into account, for the grading on the salary scale of cabin crew members of an airline, professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group of companies — Contract clause)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-132/11) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - General principles of European Union law - Collective agreement - Failure to take into account, for the grading on the salary scale of cabin crew members of an airline, professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group of companies - Contract clause)
   2012/C 217/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(1) and (3) TEU and Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Different treatment based on age — Collective agreement providing that, for the purposes of grading air stewards and stewardesses within a pay scale, the professional experience to be taken into account excludes professional experience acquired with another airline belonging to the same group — Whether a clause in an employment contract is not applicable owing to the horizontal direct effect of fundamental rights

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of a collective agreement which takes into account, for the purposes of grading in the employment categories provided for in that agreement and, therefore, determination of the level of pay, only the professional experience acquired as a cabin crew member of a specific airline, while excluding substantively identical experience acquired in the service of another airline belonging to the same group of companies.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case T-64/15: Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel slanted stripes)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/38

      Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel slanted stripes)
      (Case T-64/15)
      (2015/C 107/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel slanted stripes) — Application for registration No 10 984 102

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2563/2013-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-219/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Ferraci v Commission (State aid — Municipal real estate tax — Exemption granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities — Codified law on income tax — Exemption from the one-off municipal tax — Decision in part finding no State aid and in part declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Absolute impossibility of recovering the aid — Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Ferraci v Commission
   (Case T-219/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Municipal real estate tax - Exemption granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities - Codified law on income tax - Exemption from the one-off municipal tax - Decision in part finding no State aid and in part declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Absolute impossibility of recovering the aid - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 392/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pietro Ferraci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented initially by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, and subsequently by E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, and subsequently by G. Conte, D. Grespan and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and G. De Bellis, acting as Agents

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)); Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy (JO 2013 L 166, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Pietro Ferracci to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-452/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-452/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)
   (2005/C 217/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-452/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 6 December 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.


               25.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/23

         Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-15/10)
   2010/C 320/12
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Frode Elgesem, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VIIs gate 10, 0116 Oslo, NORWAY.
   The Applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision,

               —

               annul or substantially reduce the fine,

               —

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant, Posten Norge AS, operates the national postal service in Norway which covers mail, parcels and financial services. Its sole owner continues to be the Norwegian State. The majority of Posten Norge AS’ services (90 %) are exposed to competition.

               —

               By its decision of 14 July 2010 in case No 34250 ‘Norway Post/Privpak’, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that Posten Norge AS committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. Consequently, a fine of EUR 12,89 million was imposed.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the decision must be annulled as:

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse,

                           —

                           the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects,

                           —

                           in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified.

               —

               In the alternative the Applicant contends that the fine must be substantially reduced as the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           erred in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement,

                           —

                           failed to correctly assess the gravity of the infringement,

                           —

                           failed to conclude the administrative proceedings within reasonable time, which alone must lead to a reduction of the fine by at least 50 %.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
C 42/16        EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                             17.2.1999
                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                      NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                (1999/C 42/12)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
        European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 42ØA
        on 17 February 1999 the following open competition:
        French edition:
        EUR/A/145 (Lawyers trained in Luxembourgish law — Administrators)
        To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
        Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
        Closing date for applications: 31 March 1999.


title: Case C-527/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/65/EC — Transport policy — Port facility security — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-527/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/65/EC - Transport policy - Port facility security - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 256/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.m

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-369/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Siderurgia Sevillana, S.A. v Administración del Estado

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Siderurgia Sevillana, S.A. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-369/15)
   (2015/C 311/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siderurgia Sevillana, S.A.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) contrary to the provisions of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2) in so far as the correction factor has been established by a mechanism which, in infringement of the obligation to state reasons, does not enable the operators of installations concerned to be informed of the data, calculations and criteria taken into account for its adoption?

               2.

               By defining and fixing as it does the cap for industrial emissions and the cross-sectoral correction factor provided for in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (3) and Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU (4), does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of that Directive because it has not been drawn up in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny governed by Decision 1999/468/EC. (5)

               3.

               Having regard to the fact that Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU create a discrepancy between:

                           —

                           the calculation basis governed by Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/87/EC, by not including in those bases emissions from electricity production related to the combustion of waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat which occur in installations included in Annex I to that Directive, and

                           —

                           the criteria laid down by Article 10a(1) and (4) of the Directive for the free allocation of emission allowances, which does include that type of emissions:

                                       a)

                                       Do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(5), in conjunction with Article 3(u) and the third subparagraph in fine of the aforementioned Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that they consider that emissions produced by combustion of waste gases or by the generation of heat in installations which produce electricity and are included in Annex I to that Directive are in any event emissions from ‘electricity generators’ for the purpose of determining the industrial emissions cap, and must therefore be excluded from the calculation?

                                       b)

                                       Even if the reply to the previous question is in the negative, do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC and/or the objectives of that Directive insofar as they exclude from the basis of calculation of the industrial emissions cap governed by that provision emissions from electricity production from waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat, produced in installations included in Annex I to the aforementioned Directive, to which, however, emission allowances may be allocated free of charge under Article 10a(1) to (4) of the Directive?

               4.

               Are Commission Decision 2013/448/EU and, where appropriate, Decision 2011/278/EU, which it implements, contrary to Article 10a(12) of the Directive, because they extend the cross-sectoral correction factor to sectors defined in Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (6) (now Decision 2014/746/EU) (7) as they are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, with the consequent reduction in free emission allowances allocated?

               5.

               Does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EEC in so far as the European Commission, in order to determine the verified emissions carried out in the period 2005-2007 to which Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) refers:

                           a)

                           did not take into consideration emissions which were not included in the Community independent transaction log, even though, in the period under consideration, it was not obligatory to register such emissions.

                           b)

                           extrapolated, to the extent possible, the relevant emission figures from verified emissions in later years by applying the factor of 1,74 % in reverse direction.

                           c)

                           excluded all emissions from installations closed before 30 June 2011.

      (1)  2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (4)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (5)  1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (6)  2010/2/EU: Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 10).

      (7)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 114.


title: Case T-27/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Error of law — Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 — Principle of legality — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-27/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Error of law - Article 3(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Principle of legality - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 277/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), by which the Commission, in particular, applied to the period of 2008 to 2012 a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 849 194,86 following the exclusion of certain expenditure relating to the operational programmes of fruit and vegetable producer organisations of the United Kingdom for the years 2008 and 2009 as a result of weaknesses in the system of key controls of those programmes.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-149/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL
   (Case C-149/15)
   (2015/C 213/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

      Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

      Question referred

   Must the term ‘seller’ of consumer goods referred to in Article 1649bis of the Belgian Civil Code, as inserted by the Law of 1 September 1994 entitled ‘Law concerning consumer protection in matters involving the sale of consumer goods’, which transposes into Belgian law Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999‘on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees’ (1), be interpreted as covering not only a trader who, as seller, transfers ownership of consumer goods to a consumer, but also a trader who acts as intermediary for a non-trade seller, whether or not he is remunerated for his intervention and whether or not he has informed the prospective buyer that the seller is a private individual?

      (1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).


title: Case T-158/09: Action brought on 14 April 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/43

         Action brought on 14 April 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-158/09)
   2009/C 153/85
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Karra, I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul or alter Commission Decision C(2009) 810 of 13 February 2009 relating to the financial treatment in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the EAGGF in certain cases of irregularities committed by operators, in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               refund to the applicant the 50% which has been deducted pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation No 1290/2005 in the instances where there is no irregularity, numbered 3, 4 and 6 to 13 (except 7), or the debtor is insolvent, the case numbered 2;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By Decision C(2009) 810 of 13 February 2009 relating to the financial treatment in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the EAGGF in certain cases of irregularities committed by operators, the Commission imposed financial corrections on the applicant amounting to EUR 13 348 979,02 on account of the negligence which, according to the Commission, was displayed by the Greek authorities over a four-year period from the primary finding of the irregularity, and on account of the fact that they did not recover sums which had been wrongly paid to five undertakings operating in the wine-making, cotton and other sectors and to eight mass-production undertakings which participated in the aid regime for olive oil consumption.
   The Hellenic Republic contends by its first general plea for annulment that there is no valid legal basis for imposing the correction in any of the 13 cases examined because the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the provision, relied upon as applicable, in Articles 31(1) and 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. (1) The applicant submits in the alternative that the Commission made a manifest fundamental error and misappraised the factual circumstances that relate to the acts of the competent Greek authorities and, in the further alternative, that the statement of reasons in the contested decision, which is based on the mistaken presumption that nothing was done in the four-year period from the primary finding of the irregularity and that the recovery procedure or a valid recovery procedure was not begun, does not meet the requirement of Article 253 EC because it is defective, insufficient and vague, failing to rebut the arguments which Greece put forward in the course of the bilateral consultations and of the procedure before the Conciliation Body.
   By the second plea for annulment, the applicant contends that the Commission mistakenly did not apply the fifth paragraph of Article 32(5) and Article 32(6)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 instead of Article 32(1) and (8) in four cases, with the result that it charged the expenditure in question to the applicant instead of its being taken on by the EAGF.
   By the third plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, which lays down a period of one year from the primary administrative or judicial finding for the initiation of all administrative and judicial procedures laid down by national legislation with a view to recovery, concerns only irregularities occurring after the regulation began to apply and cannot concern irregularities which took place decades ago, when a different legal regime was in force which did not lay down a corresponding time-limit, the control being restricted to the observance of a reasonable period.
   By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant submits that the Commission’s claim that the sums should be charged to the applicant, after the passing of 15 to 20 years from the irregularity relied upon, is time-barred because of the excessive duration of the procedure, or in the alternative the principle of legal certainty has been infringed.
   Finally, by the fifth plea for annulment, the applicant submits that, since there is no irregularity in cases 3, 4, 6 and 8 to 13, the 24-month rule in Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 applies in respect of any instance of recovery, and therefore the charging of the corresponding sums which are referable to a period far in excess of 24 months from notification of the inspection findings is misconceived and must be annulled.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case T-165/03: Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (5 ) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                                measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
                                                                                to combatting terrorism (OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 70).
                                                                           (6 ) Regulation of the European Parliement and the Council of 30 May
—      annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
                                                                                2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
       of 27th February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by                    and Commisson documents (OJ L 145, of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
       the council on the 27th February 2003 to the confirma-
       tory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the
       3rd February 2002 under Article 7(2) of the Regulation
       (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel
       on 28 February 2003;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (Case T-165/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/74)
The applicant in the present case is the same as in cases T-47/
3 Sison/Council and Commission (1) and T-110/03 Sison/                                         (Language of the Case: German)
Council (2), pursues the annulment of the defendant’s decision
not to get him access to all the documents which were the
basis of the Council Decision 2002/974/CE (3), repealing the
previous Decision 2002/848/EC ( 4), by which the applicant
itself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
pertinent to Article 2(3), of Regulation 2580/2001 (5).                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier,
                                                                           resident in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                           W. Schmolke, lawyer.
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      The infringement of the right of access to documents, as
       forseen in Articles 1(2) EU, 6(1) EU, 255 EC and 4(1)(a),
       4(6) and 9(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (6).                          —      annul and set aside the decision of the selection board of
                                                                                30 July 2002 not to include him on the list of successful
                                                                                candidates in Competition COM/A/601 for the field of
—      The violation of the principle of sound adminstration, as                  external relations;
       well as the duty to state reasons.
                                                                           —      order the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 in compen-
                                                                                sation for the non-material damage caused to the him;
—      The violation of the general principle of Community Law
       enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to
       be informed promptly, in an understandable language                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to
       and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.                  Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure if appropriate.
( 1) OJ C 101, of 26.4.2003, p. 41.
( 2) Not published in the OJ yet.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 3) Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          Competition COM/A/601 (1) was held in order to recruit
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ
     L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 85).
                                                                           administrators in the fields of external relations and adminis-
( 4) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
                                                                           tration of aid to non-member countries. The applicant, an
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures      Austrian national, submitted an application for the field of
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to          foreign relations. He was successful in the written procedure
     combatting terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ           and was admitted to the oral examination. By the contested
     L 295, of 30.10.2002, p. 12).                                         decision he was, however, informed that he could not be
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.9.2003
included on the list of successful candidates because his mark             Pleas in law and main arguments
for the oral examination (18 out of 40) fell below the
minimum mark of 20.
The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:                        On 11 June 2002 the defendant adopted a decision to impose
                                                                           a fine on the applicant and seven other Austrian banks in the
                                                                           case COMP/36.571 (Austrian Banks). The applicant brought
—     Breach of the prohibition against discrimination on                  an action against that decision ( 1).
      grounds of nationality under Articles 12 EC and 39 EC
      and of the requirement that applicants in a competition
      be treated equally: by reason of his Austrian nationality,
      the applicant was not admitted to a seminar for preparing
      for the oral examination which was organised by the                  By the present action the applicant challenges the defendant’s
      German Department for Foreign Affairs and in which                   decision of 5 May 2003, in which the defendant gave notice
      Commission officials took part.                                      that its decision of 11 June 2002 would be published in the
                                                                           Official Journal of the European Communities and on the
—     Defective composition of the selection board, breach of              Internet. By the contested decision, the defendant rejected
      essential procedural requirements and infringement of                the applicant’s request as regards the defendant’s proposed
      Annex III to the Staff Regulations.                                  publication of the decision to impose a fine.
—     Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers by
      the selection board.
                                                                           The applicant claims that publication of the decision to impose
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements through a                a fine in the form notified is inadmissible. It maintains that the
      failure to assess the applicant’s linguistic knowledge,              decision may not be published, since Article 21(1) of Regu-
      contrary to the notice of competition.                               lation No 17 does not allow decisions taken under Article 15
                                                                           of Regulation No 17 to be published.
( 1) Officially announced in OJ No C 110 A, 11.4.2001, p. 13.
                                                                           Moreover, the decision to impose a fine may not be disclosed
                                                                           in the non-confidential version used by the defendant, since it
                                                                           reproduces the decision to impose a fine word for word
                                                                           except for making the names of natural persons anonymous.
                                                                           Regulation No 17, however, allows the disclosure only of the
                                                                           substance of a decision which is to be made public.
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditan-
stalt AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                           The applicant furthermore maintains that the passages of the
                          (Case T-198/03)                                  decision to impose a fine which relate to the year 1994 may
                                                                           not be published in any event, since those observations are not
                                                                           relevant to the operative part of the decision and the defendant
                          (2003/C 213/75)                                  was not competent to find that the applicant infringed
                                                                           Article 81 EC in the year 1994. Moreover, the publication of
                    (Language of the Case: German)                         the decision in the Official Journal of the European Community
                                                                           and on the Internet in a non-confidential version infringes
                                                                           Regulation No 45/2001 (2).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-260/02, Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission (OJ
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria
                                                                                2002 C 274, p. 28).
Creditanstalt AG, Vienna (Austria), represented by C. Zschocke
                                                                           (2 ) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
and J. Beninca, lawyers.                                                        the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
                                                                                with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
                                                                                institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
—     annul the Commission’s decision 5 May 2003;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-463/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gambling — National rules — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of previous licences — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/8

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato
      (Case C-463/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gambling - National rules - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of previous licences - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
      (2015/C 107/09)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

         Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

         Intervening parties: Intralot Italia SpA, SNAI SpA, Galassia Game Srl, Eurobet Italia Srl unipersonale, Lottomatica Scommesse Srl, Sisal Match Point SpA, Cogetech Gaming Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded previously because of the reorganisation of the system by way of an alignment of licence expiry dates.

         (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-54/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/34

      Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)
      (Case T-54/15)
      (2015/C 107/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant(s): Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Liiga’ — Application for registration No 12 056 792

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2014 in Case R 576/2014-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and allow the trade mark to proceed to publication;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-98/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/24

         Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-98/12)
   2012/C 343/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 June 2012 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against his non-promotion to AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-635/11: Action brought on 9 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/4

         Action brought on 9 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-635/11)
   2012/C 58/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that, in the case of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, the employees of establishments of that company that are situated in other Member States have the same entitlement to exercise participation rights as is enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under subparagraph (b) of Article 16(2) (introductory sentence and second part of the sentence) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies; (1)

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It is apparent from Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC that the national law of the Member State in which the company resulting from the cross-border merger has its registered office must provide that employees of establishments of the company resulting from the cross-border merger that are situated in other Member States are to have the same entitlement to exercise participation rights in the company resulting from the cross-border merger as is enjoyed by those employees employed in the Member State in which that new company has its registered office.
   Consequently, the national law transposing Directive 2005/56 must provide for all the situations envisaged in Article 16(2) of that directive.
   This has not been the case in the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.


C 102/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case C-399/95 (1)
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations                                       (2000/C 102/29)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/21/EC of 8 April 1998 (1)                    By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
     amending Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate the           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
     free movement of doctors and the mutual recoginition of              from the register of Case C-399/95: Federal Republic of
     their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal            Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
     qualifications, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary
     to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that Directive                                                 (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
2) order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-195/96 (1)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation                                     (2000/C 102/30)
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December            By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of            from the register of Case C-195/96: Federal Republic of
the Commission.                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
(1) OJ L 119 of 22.4.1998, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-333/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-255/92 P (1)                                           (2000/C 102/31)
                         (2000/C 102/27)                                  By order of 17 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of                 from the register of Case C-333/98 (reference for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               ruling from the Commissione dei v i Provvedimenti dell’Ufficio
from the register of Case C-255/92 P: BASF AG v Commission                Italiano Brevetti e Marchi): Merck & Co Inc. v Ufficio Italiano
of the European Communities.                                              Brevetti e Marchi.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.                                                (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-291/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-129/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/32)
                         (2000/C 102/28)
                                                                          By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 10 December 1999 the President of the Court of                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-291/99 (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-129/99: Federal Republic of                   ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste, Prima Sezione Civile):
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                         Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314, 30.10.1999.


title: Case C-65/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT — Consultation of the VAT Committee)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-65/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT - Consultation of the VAT Committee)
   2013/C 171/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group — Failure to notify the VAT Committee of amendments to the implementation of the VAT group scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case T-537/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (FAGUMIT)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/46

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (FAGUMIT)
   (Case T-537/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ursula Adamowski (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit Sp. z o.o. (Wolbrom, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2010 in Case R 1002/2009-1;

               —

               dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark No 3 005 980;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in removing the mark from the register, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘FAGUMIT’ for goods in Classes 12 and 17.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ursula Adamowski

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit Sp. z o.o.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘FAGUMIT’ for goods in Class 17.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for annulment.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the mark was declared invalid.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in conjunction with Article 8(4) thereof, since the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal failed to provide legally valid evidence that the company name ‘FAGUMIT’ is actually used; infringement of Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(3) thereof, since the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal effectively agreed to the registration of the trade mark rights associated with the name ‘FAGUMIT’, and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the applicant cannot be accused of acting in bad faith at the time when she filed her application for the contested Community trade mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-590/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/26

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2014 by Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 October 2014 in Case T-542/11 Alouminion v Commission
   (Case C-590/14 P)
   (2015/C 065/36)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, K. Sinodinos, K. Tagaras and A. Ikonomou, dikigori)

      Other party to the proceedings: Alouminion AE

      Form of order sought

               —

               uphold the appeal;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and those of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal must be set aside for the following reasons:

               1.

               Error of law in interpreting Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(c) and (b) of Regulation No 659/99, inasmuch as it was held that the extension of aid does not ipso facto constitute new aid, but that classification as such requires alteration of the aid’s substance.

               2.

               Error of law, manifest error of assessment and distortion of the facts as regards the ruling that application of the preferential tariff during the period at issue constitutes the extension of existing aid.

               3.

               Manifest error of law and fact and manifest error of assessment as regards the ruling that the legal and contractual basis for the aid remained unchanged.

               4.

               Infringement of the duty to state reasons as regards the failure of the judgment under appeal to explain whether the conditions for classification as new aid are cumulative and whether classification of aid as new requires the existence of legislative intervention.

               5.

               Infringement of the General Court’s obligation to rule on the relevant submissions put forward and of the duty to state reasons.


title: Case C-359/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Brive-la-Gaillarde (France)) — Estager SA v Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Brive (Economic and monetary policy — Regulations (EC) No 1103/97 and No 974/98 — Introduction of the euro — Conversion between the euro and national currency units — Legislation of a Member State adjusting the value in euros of certain sums expressed in national currency in the legislative texts of that State)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Brive-la-Gaillarde (France)) — Estager SA v Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Brive
   (Case C-359/05) (1)

   (Economic and monetary policy - Regulations (EC) No 1103/97 and No 974/98 - Introduction of the euro - Conversion between the euro and national currency units - Legislation of a Member State adjusting the value in euros of certain sums expressed in national currency in the legislative texts of that State)
   (2007/C 56/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de grande instance de Brive-la-Gaillarde (France)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Estager SA

      Defendant: Receveur principal de la Recette des Douanes de Brive
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Brive-La-Gaillarde — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1) and of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1) — National legislation rounding off the amount of tax on the supplementary budget for agricultural social benefits (BAPSA) following its conversion into euros
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro and Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on effecting the conversion into euros of an amount of a tax on flour, meal and groats of common wheat supplied or used for human consumption, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, raised it to an amount higher than that which would have resulted from application of the rules of conversion provided for in those regulations, unless such an increase meets the requirements of legal certainty and transparency guaranteed by those regulations, which presupposes that the legislative texts at issue make it possible to distinguish clearly the decision of the authorities of a Member State to increase that amount from the operation of conversion of that amount into euros. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is so in the proceedings before it.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case T-21/04: Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/39
Grounds of claim:               —    The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is                 2)    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                     registrable in Class 9 because
                                     it does not directly describe
                                     the goods in any manner;
                                —    The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                     can serve as a mark in trade
                                     to distinguish goods of the
                                     applicant from goods of
                                     other traders;                         The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
                                                                            posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
                                —    The Office for Harmonis-               pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
                                     ation in the Internal Market           period since 1 July 2002.
                                     has accepted several similar
                                     trademarks.
                                                                            In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
                                                                            single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-       fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of               No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
    17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).
                                                                            to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
                                                                            the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
                                                                            irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
                                                                            not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
                                                                            their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
                                                                            that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
                                                                            requirement.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
                     European Communities
                           (Case T-20/04)
                           (2004/C 71/68)
                                                                            Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-21/04)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar                                                (2004/C 71/69)
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service             (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
in Luxembourg.                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                submitted: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting                   21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
      with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and                     New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
      pensions of officials and other servants of the European              Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
      Communities and the weightings applied thereto;                       the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/40                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       20.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez
                                                                           S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated
      the 17 November 2003;
                                                                                (Case T-25/04)
—     direct that the applicant’s application for a declaration of
      invalidity fails;                                                                              (2004/C 71/70)
—     order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs here and                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
      below or order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs
      here and direct that the applicant pay the appellant’s costs
      below.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 22 January 2004 by González y
                                                                           Díez S.A., whose registered office is at Villabona-Llanera
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Asturias, Spain), represented by J. Díez-Hochleitner and
                                                                           A. Martínez Sánchez, lawyers.
Community trade mark           Word Mark ‘FUSION’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 1061050 for products              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               within class 9 (Audio, video and
                               security equipment for vehicles).
                                                                           —     annul in their entirety Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the
                                                                                Commission decision of 5 November 2003 on aid for
Proprietor of mark or          The Applicant.                                    González y Díez S.A. to cover exceptional expenses. (aid
sign whose cancellation                                                          for 2001 and misuse of aid for 1998 and 2000), and in
is sought:                                                                       so far as that decision amends Decision 2002/827/ECSC;
                                                                                and
Applicant for cancel-          Ford Motor Company, in relation
lation:                        to Community trade mark regis-              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                               tration No 747121 of the word
                               mark ‘FUSION’ for goods in class-
                               es 12 (Motor land vehicles and
                               parts and fittings therefore) and
                               37 (Motor vehicles maintenance              Pleas in law and main arguments
                               and repair services).
Decision of the Cancel-        Application upheld.                         The Decision challenged in the present proceedings abrogates
lation Division:                                                           Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Decision 2002/827/ECSC of 2 July 2002
                                                                           on the granting by Spain of aid to the undertaking González y
                                                                           Díez S.A. in 1998, 2000 and 2001. That decision has already
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           been the subject of a previous action, brought by the same
Appeal:
                                                                           company (1).
Pleas in law:                  —     The notion of similarity of
                                     customers as set out in the           The Decision challenged:
                                     contested decision is wrong.
                               —     The conclusion that the               —     states in Article 1 that certain aid for the coal industry
                                     goods set out in the respect-               granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
                                     ive registrations are at least              ing costs totalling EUR 3131726,47 constitutes an abuse
                                     similar is wrong.                           of Commission Decisions 98/637/ECSC (2) and 2001/
                                                                                162/ECSC (3) of 3 June 1998 and 13 December 2000
                                                                                respectively on the granting by Spain of aid to the
                                                                                coal industry in 1998 and 2000 and are, therefore,
                                                                                incompatible with the common market;


title: Case C-599/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-599/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 309/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan, B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (represented by: T. Buruma and A.M. van Eik, advocaten), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, C. Crane, J. Kraehling and V. Kaye, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and B. Fodda, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE);

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-90/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Milano v Chiara Picerno (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
14.7.2001                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 200/29
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-90/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-91/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Milano v Chiara                            the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Imperia v Gianluca
                                 Picerno (1)                                                     Barrese and Andrea De Sanctis (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/51)                                                                 (2001/C 200/52)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-90/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-91/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Milano and Chiara                         before that court between Questore di Imperia and Gianluca
Picerno on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty                Barrese and Andrea De Sanctis on the interpretation of the
on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),                     provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom to provide services —
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                          the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, Presi-
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-                      dent of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Mack-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       en, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    has made an order on 15 December 2000, the operative part
follows:                                                                        of which is as follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-212/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia S.A.

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2017 — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia S.A.
   (Case C-212/17)
   (2017/C 231/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Simón Rodríguez Otero

      Respondent: Televisión de Galicia S.A.

      Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

      Questions referred

               1.a)

               For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP? (1)

               2.a)

               If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-251/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing part of a door — Earlier international design consisting of an American patent — Ground of invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Evidence that the earlier design was made available to the public — Circles specialised in the sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6, Article 7(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door)
   (Case T-251/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing part of a door - Earlier international design consisting of an American patent - Ground of invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Evidence that the earlier design was made available to the public - Circles specialised in the sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6, Article 7(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2015/C 398/64)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) (Jasło, Poland) (represented by: D. Kulig, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1464/2012-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) and Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-74/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Now Pharma v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/43

         Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Now Pharma v Commission

   (Case T-74/08)
   (2008/C 92/85)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Now Pharma AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Kaletta and I.J. Tegebauer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2007) 6132 of 4 December 2007;

               —

               hold that the Commission should take a new decision in relation to the applicant's application of 6 February 2007, taking into consideration the Court's view of the law;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the Commission's Decision of 4 December 2007 refusing the applicant's request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Extrait liquide spécial de Chelidonii radix’ (‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’) as an orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 3 of Regulation No 141/2000. In this respect, the applicant submits, in particular, that the final negative opinion of the European Medicines Agency was based on a wrong standard, namely the requirements for marketing authorisation in respect of a medicinal product pursuant to Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation No 141/2000. However, according to the applicant, whether a medicinal product is to be designated as an orphan medicinal product depends on whether the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the particular condition, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 (2). According to the applicant, the requirements of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 141/2000 are fulfilled, because the medicinal product constitutes an orphan medicinal product and will be of significant benefit.
   In addition, the applicant takes issue with the lack of qualifications and the bias of the expert.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 of 27 April 2000 laying down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product and definitions of the concepts similar medicinal product and clinical superiority (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 5).


title: Case C-140/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini
   (Case C-140/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))
   (2017/C 063/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Maiolati Spontini

      Joined party: Torelli Dottori SpA

      Operative part of the order

   The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.