Important legal notice

|

E2001P0001

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Hörður Einarsson v the Republic of Iceland (Case E-1/01)

Official Journal C 164 , 07/06/2001 P. 0008 - 0008

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Hörður Einarsson v the Republic of Iceland(Case E-1/01)(2001/C 164/06)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 11 January 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hörður Einarsson v the Republic of Iceland on the following questions:1. Is it compatible with EEA law, in particular Articles 14 and 10 of the EEA Agreement, or, as the case may be, Article 4 of the EEA Agreement, that a value added tax (VAT) on books is imposed in accordance with Icelandic law which is higher (24,5 %) on books in foreign languages than on books in the Icelandic language (14 %), when books in Icelandic are generally published in Iceland, while books in other languages are generally published in other countries, including other EEA countries?2. In particular, is (a) Article 14 of the EEA Agreement to be understood in the sense that books in Icelandic and books in other languages are similar products within the meaning of that provision, or (b) different taxation on books according to language, in the manner described above, likely to afford indirect protection to domestic book production?3. Can the difference in the VAT percentage levied be justified by the aim of the Icelandic authorities to enhance the position of the Icelandic language through a lower rate of VAT charged on books in Icelandic?4. Does Iceland's power to levy VAT prevent the application of EEA rules, in particular Articles 14 and 10 of the EEA Agreement, in the present case?5. If, following the answers to the above questions, the rules regulating value added tax on books are deemed incompatible with the EEA Agreement, do the EEA Agreement or the rules deriving therefrom contain any provisions as to what rules are to be applied in cases of conflict between national law and rules deriving from the EEA Agreement?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Ghent, by order of that court of 18 December 1997 in the case of Openbaar Ministerie v. D.R.C. Schacht and others (Case C-3/98)

text:
7.3.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 72/9
industries is prohibited and providing that aid to the steel         the case of aid for other purposes it stated (at
industry, whether specific or non-specific, financed by              paragraph 51):
Member States . . . may be deemed Community aid and
therefore compatible with the orderly functioning of the
common market only if it satisfies certain prescribed                the Aid Code is intended only to authorise generally, and
conditions for specified categories of aid, can the                  subject to certain conditions, derogations from the
Commission       lawfully     make     individual    Decisions       prohibition of aid for certain categories which it lists
authorising the grant of State aid which does not fall               exhaustively . . . Aid not falling into categories which the
within any of those categories?                                      Code exempts from that prohibition thus remain subject
                                                                     exclusively to Article 4(c). It follows that where such aid
                                                                     nevertheless proves necessary to attain the objectives of
                                                                     the Treaty, the Commission is empowered to rely on
The Appellant submits that that answer to the question is
                                                                     Article 95 of the Treaty in order to deal with that
No'. The Aid Code in force at the material time was the
                                                                     unforeseen situation, if need be by means of an individual
Fifth Steel Aid Code adopted on 27 November 1991 by
                                                                     decision.'
Commission Decision 3855/91/ECSC (3). Article 1
provided that
                                                                     The Appellant submits that the statement is incorrect. The
                                                                     principle whereby the Commission is not empowered to
Aid to the steel industry, whether specific or non-specific,        authorise State aid to the steel industry in such a situation
financed by Member States or their regional or local                 may be characterised as a case of lack of competence.
authorities or through State resources in any form
whatsoever may be deemed Community aid and therefore
compatible with the orderly functioning of the common                (1) concerning aid to be granted by Spain to the public integrated
                                                                         steel company Corporación de la Siderurgia Integral (OJ L 112,
market only if it satisfied the provisions of Articles 2 to 5'.
                                                                         3.5.1994, p. 58).
                                                                     (2) concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the public steel sector
                                                                         (Ilva group) (OJ L 112, 3.5.1994, p. 64).
                                                                     (3) OJ L 362, 31.12.1991, p. 57.
Articles 2 to 5 provided that aid might be considered
compatible with the common market when granted for
research and development (Article 2), environmental
protection (Article 3), closures (Article 4) and general
regional aid schemes in Greece, Portugal and the former
GDR (Article 5).
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
                                                                     Beroep, Ghent, by order of that court of 18 December
By its Decisions 94/258/ECSC and 94/259/ECSC of                      1997 in the case of Openbaar Ministerie v. D.R.C.
12 April 1994, the Commission purported to authorise aid                                    Schacht and others
to the Italian and Spanish public steel industries which fell
outside the provisions of Articles 2 to 5. The purpose of                                     (Case C-3/98)
the Fifth Steel Aid Code was to prohibit the authorisation                                     (98/C 72/16)
of such aid; and it was not open to the Commission to
authorise it, during the currency of the Code, without any
amendment of the latter. This answer is compelled by
practical as well as legal considerations. If the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Commission could authorise individual grants of State aid,           European Communities by an order of the Hof van
in the face of the terms of the Aid Code, the prohibition            Beroep (Court of Appeal) of 18 December 1997, which
contained in that Code would be ineffective: indeed, it              was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1998, for
would be writ in water'.                                            a preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie
                                                                     (Office of the Public Prosecutor) v. D.R.C. Schacht on the
                                                                     following question:
The Court of First Instance, on the other hand, concluded
(at paragraph 50 of the judgment) that
                                                                     Must Article 14a(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 1(a)(i)
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
                                                                     application of social security schemes to employed
the [Fifth Steel Aid] Code constitutes a binding legal              persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
framework only for the types of aid enumerated by it                 families moving within the Community be interpreted as
which are compatible with the Treaty'.                               meaning that a normally self-employed person who is
                                                                     temporarily working in another Member State, retains his
                                                                     status as a self-employed person during the period of the
                                                                     continuing application to him of the legislation of the
(that is, aid for research and development, environmental            Member State in which he usually works, in accordance
protection, closures and general regional aid schemes). In           with the provisions of the applicable legislation, so that it
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
is not open to the Member State in which he is                          If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, the
temporarily working to regard work carried out on its                   following further questions are raised:
territory as salaried employment, or must those provisions
be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the latter State
to regard that temporary work as salaried employment in
order to bring the person concerned on that ground within           3. Does the determination whether the legislation of non-
its legislation on employed persons?                                    member country or countries in question offers the
                                                                        guarantee of reciprocity referred to in Question 2 fall
                                                                        within the scope of Article 177 of the Treaty
                                                                        establishing the European Community so that a court
                                                                        in a Member State is entitled or even, according to the
                                                                        circumstances, bound to refer a question to the Court
                                                                        of Justice?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sù- og                            If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, the
Handelsretten, Copenhagen, by order of that court of                    following further questions are raised:
3 December 1997 in the cases of Calvin Klein Trademark
Trust v. Cowboyland A/S, Dansk Supermarked
Administration A/S, HBN Marketing ApS, Progress, in the
    person of Peter Jensen, and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S            4. Should the trade mark legislation in the United States
                                                                        of America be regarded as offering the guarantee of
                        (Case C-4/98)                                   reciprocity referred to in Question 2?
                         (98/C 72/17)
                                                                        Lastly, if the answer to Question 1 is in the negative
                                                                        and/or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, the
                                                                        following final question is raised:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of Sù- og
Handelsretten (Maritime and Commercial Court) of
3 December 1997, which was received at the Court                    5. Should the term legitimate reasons' in Article 7(2) of
Registry on 12 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in                the said Directive be understood as meaning that the
the cases of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland                 proprietor of a trade mark may oppose use of the
A/S and Others, on the following questions:                             mark in a Member State on goods which have been
                                                                        marketed in a non-member country by the proprietor,
                                                                        or with his consent, when those goods are different in
                                                                        design, fit, colour, labelling information, handling of
                                                                        the material used, sewing and similar ways from
1. Does Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive of                  equivalent goods marketed by the proprietor of the
     21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the                    mark, or with his consent, in the Member State in
     Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/                     question or in other Member States?
     EEC) (1) preclude the individual Member States from
     maintaining, introducing or reintroducing a general
     rule in their national trade mark legislation to the           (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
     effect that the proprietor of a trade mark may not
     prevent the use of the trade mark in that Member
     State for goods which have been put on the market
     under that mark by the proprietor of the mark
     himself, or with his consent, in a non-member country,
     in other words outside the Community area?
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                    Grande Instance, AngouleÃme (First Civil Chamber) by
                                                                    judgment of that court of 8 January 1998 in the case of
2. Are the courts in a Member State entitled to preclude
                                                                    SA Otor Godard v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la
     the proprietor of a trade mark from preventing the use
                                                                                Charente
     in the Member State of the mark for goods which
     have been put on the market under that mark by the                                      (Case C-5/98)
     proprietor of the mark himself, or with his consent, in
     a non-member country whose trade mark legislation                                        (98/C 72/18)
     guarantees that the proprietor of the mark is precluded
     from preventing the use of a mark in the non-member
     country in question for goods which have been put on
     the market for the first time by the proprietor of the         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     mark himself, or with his consent, in a Member State?          European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil


title: Case T-285/11: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Gooré v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/24

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Gooré v Council
   (Case T-285/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Action manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 49/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Charles Kader Gooré (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: F. Meynot, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), as regards the applicant’s name and, secondly, an application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire.

               2.

               The application for damages is dismissed.

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

               4.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-261/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione di Parma by order of that Court of 6 May 2003 in the case of Allevamenti Associati S.r.l. and Regione Emilia Romagna against AGEA e Latteria Sociale Moderna S.c.a.r.l.

text:
C 200/14                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark                       Amministrativo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione
                                                                           di Parma by order of that Court of 6 May 2003 in the
                                                                           case of Allevamenti Associati S.r.l. and Regione Emilia
                             (Case C-260/03)                               Romagna against AGEA e Latteria Sociale Moderna
                                                                                S.c.a.r.l.
                             (2003/C 200/23)
                                                                                (Case C-261/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/24)
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Commu-                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
nities, represented by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agent, with an              European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         tivo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione di Parma
                                                                           (Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna, Parma
                                                                           district) of 6 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                17 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alleva-
                                                                           menti Associati S.r.l. and Regione Emilia Romagna against
                                                                           AGEA e Latteria Sociale Moderna S.c.a.r.l. on the following
1.     Declare that the Kingdom of Denmark,                                question:
       —     by not adopting detailed rules for use of the fishing         On a proper construction of Regulation EEC No 3950/92 (1) of
             availabilities allocated to Denmark;                          28 December 1992 (in particular Articles 1, 2 and 9(g)
                                                                           thereof) and Regulation EEC No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993
       —     by not ensuring compliance with the EC regulations            (in particular Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof), is the transfer of a
             on the conservation of fishery resources through              quantity of milk by the producer to a third party, while
             monitoring of fishing activity, through appropriate           retaining the right of property in it, in performance of a
             inspections of landings and registration of catches,          contract for the processing of the milk and in order to
             and through administrative action or criminal                 manufacture cheese, butter and whey, for consideration, to be
             proceedings against the persons responsible for over-         classified as ‘delivery’ or ‘direct sale’ for the purposes of
             fishing;                                                      determining milk quotas and whether the additional levy is to
                                                                           be applied?
       —     by not having provisionally prohibited fishing from
             vessels flying the Danish flag or registered in               (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
             Denmark when the quota applicable to them is                  (2) OJ L 57 of 10.03.1993, p. 12.
             deemed to have been exhausted;
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under both Article 9(2)
       of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
       Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of Regulation (EEC)
       No 2847/93 (2);                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                           Amministrativo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione
                                                                           di Parma by order of that Court of 6 May 2003 in the
2.     Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.                      case of Latteria Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. a r.l. against
                                                                           AIMA and Servizio Provinciale Agricoltura, Reggio Emilia,
                                                                           Regione Emilia Romagna, and AGEA Agenzia per le
                                                                           Erogazioni in Agricoltura; Intervener: Allevamenti Asso-
                                                                                ciati Soc.r.l.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case C-262/03)
These pleas correspond essentially to those put forward in the                                      (2003/C 200/25)
application in Case C-259/03 (3) brought concerning exceeding
of fisheries availabilities and insufficient related control
measures for the years 1990 to 1992 and 1994.                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
                                                                           tivo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione di Parma
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                (Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna, Parma
    establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ
    1992 L 389, p. 1).                                                     district) of 6 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847 of 12 October 1993 establishing       17 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Latteria
    a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ         Sociale Moderna Soc. Coop. a r.l. against AIMA and Servizio
    1993 261, p. 1).                                                       Provinciale Agricoltura, Reggio Emilia, Regione Emilia
(3) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                                    Romagna, and AGEA Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura;
                                                                           Intervener: Allevamenti Associati Soc.r.l. on the following
                                                                           question:


title: Case C-165/05: Action brought on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/20

         Action brought on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-165/05)
   (2005/C 132/38)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gérard Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by imposing in its legislation an obligation on nationals of non-member countries married to migrant workers from the European Union to obtain a work permit and by failing to bring its legislation into line with Community law, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community; (1)

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Article 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 provides that, where a national of a Member State is pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State, his spouse and those of the children who are under the age of 21 years or dependent on him are to have the right to take up any activity in an employed capacity throughout the territory of that State, even if they are not nationals of any Member State.
   The right to work is unconditional and means that a spouse or other family member who is a national of a non-member country cannot be required to apply for or obtain a work permit in order to be able to take up an activity as an employed person inasmuch as that would have the effect of rendering that right subject to a further prior condition at variance with the express provisions of the aforementioned Article 11.
   Luxembourg nationals are not required to hold a work permit in order to be able to take up employment in the Grand Duchy. It is for that reason contrary to Article 3 of Regulation No 1612/68 to impose such an obligation on nationals of non-member countries married to migrant workers from the European Union.
   The national statutory framework must dispel all doubt and ambiguity not only as to the content of the applicable national rules but also in regard to the formal value of those rules.
   The incompatibility of the national legislation with Treaty provisions, even those directly applicable, can be definitively removed only by way of internal provisions that are mandatory in nature and have the same legal status as those to be amended.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.


Important legal notice

|

E1999P0002

Action brought on 20 December 1999 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-2/99)

Official Journal C 052 , 24/02/2000 P. 0028 - 0028

Action brought on 20 December 1999 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway(Case E-2/99)(2000/C 52/10)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 1999 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Anne-Lise H. Rolland, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Burssels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with Article 10(2) of the Act referred to in point 1a of Annex VII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, with regard to the professions coming under the heading "3. Seafaring Sector" of Annex C to the Act, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 (the "Act") provides for a general system for the recognition of professional education and training. Article 10(2) of the Act provides for mutual recognition of medical certificates when they are required for taking up or pursuing a regulated profession. As concerns seafarers, the Norwegian legislation provides in short that medical certificates must be issued in accordance with Norwegian provisions and by doctors approved by the Norwegian authorities. The applicant submits that this requirement amounts to a violation of Article 10(2) of the Act.- According to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, acts referred to or contained in the Annexes ot the Agreement shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of the internal legal order.- Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC is referred to in point 1a of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement.- It follows from Article 17 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, that Norway was to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Act by 1 July 1994 and immediately to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures taken to that end.- At the expiry of the abovementioned time-limit, Norway had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time-limit set by the EFTA Surveillane Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Norway has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations under Article 17 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-36/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Japan Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Japan Airlines v Commission
   (Case T-36/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Japan Airlines Co. Ltd, formerly Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, K. Van Hove, lawyers, and R. Burton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen and S. Noë, subsequently by S. Noë, and J. Bourke, and finally by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant and on Japan Airlines Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Japan Airlines Co. Ltd and Japan Airlines Corp.;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Japan Airlines Co. Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-461/07: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the provision of credit and deferred debit card acquiring services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Restriction of competition — Potential competitor — Fines — Mitigating circumstances — Reasonable time — Legal certainty — Rights of the defence)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — Visa Europe and Visa International Service v Commission
   (Case T-461/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the provision of credit and deferred debit card acquiring services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Restriction of competition - Potential competitor - Fines - Mitigating circumstances - Reasonable time - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence)
   2011/C 160/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and Visa International Service (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by S. Morris QC, H. Davies and A. Howard, Barristers, V. Davies and H. Masters, Solicitors, and subsequently by S. Morris and P. Scott, Solicitor, A. Howard, V. Davies and C. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, N. Khan and V. Bottka, and subsequently by N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4471 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/D1/37.860 — Morgan Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Visa Europe Ltd and Visa International Service to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-78/09 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2009 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 December 2008 in Case F-148/06, Collée v Parliament

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/28

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2009 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 December 2008 in Case F-148/06, Collée v Parliament
   (Case T-78/09 P)
   2009/C 102/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (represented by C. Burgos and A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Laurent Collée (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul in its entirety the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter by dismissing the action brought by Mr Collée as unfounded;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this appeal, the Parliament seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 11 December 2008 in Case F-148/06 Collée v Parliament, by which the Tribunal annulled the Parliament’s decision to award two merit points to Mr Collée under the 2004 promotion procedure.
   In support of its appeal, the Parliament relies on four grounds of appeal alleging:

               —

               a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the Tribunal stated that Mr Collée had not received a third merit point on the sole ground that his merits were not superior to those of officials who had obtained three points, although the comparative examination carried out with a view to responding to Mr Collée’s administrative complaint stated that his staff report was not of a level equivalent to that of officials who had obtained three points;

               —

               failure to state reasons, on the ground that the Tribunal did not explain why it departed from earlier case-law, and contradictory reasoning, first, in paragraphs 42 and 46 as against paragraph 18 of the judgment under appeal and, secondly, in paragraphs 43 and 46 as against paragraphs 44 and 45 of that judgment;

               —

               infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and of the case-law relating thereto, in so far as the requirement of superiority of merits applied by the Parliament for the award of a third point is not inconsistent with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; thus an official must be superior in the decreasing order of merit, to the last official who received three points;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment as the Tribunal stated that the Parliament had infringed that principle although Mr Collée was not in a situation comparable to that of officials who had received three merit points.


title: Case T-440/09: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission (Extra-contractual liability — Agriculture — Bird flu — Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector — Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — No causal link — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission
   (Case T-440/09) (1)

   (Extra-contractual liability - Agriculture - Bird flu - Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector - Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - No causal link - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2012/C 217/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione (Orgiano, Italy) (represented by: F. Tosello, S. Rizzioli and C. Pauly, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States (OJ 2006 L 180, p. 3), in so far as that regulation does not provide for such measures in favour of poultry farmers active in the farming and marketing of quails.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               2.

               Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-167/11 P: Order of the Court of 22 March 2012 — Cantiere navale De Poli SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission Decision — Alteration to existing aid — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/7

         Order of the Court of 22 March 2012 — Cantiere navale De Poli SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-167/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - State aid - Incompatibility with the common market - Commission Decision - Alteration to existing aid - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 - Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding)
   2012/C 194/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Cantiere navale De Poli SpA (represented by: A. Abate and A. Franchi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-584/08 Cantieri Navale De Poli v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C-20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Cantiere navale De Poli SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case C-539/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Facet BV/Facet Trading BV

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Facet BV/Facet Trading BV
   (Case C-539/08)
   (2009/C 44/57)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: Facet BV/Facet Trading BV
   Question referred
   Must Article 17(2) and (3) and Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that, if the place of an intra-Community acquisition is deemed, on the basis of the first subparagraph of the latter provision, to be within the territory of the Member State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person acquiring made the acquisition, the aforementioned person acquiring the goods has the right immediately to deduct the VAT thus due in that Member State?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-517/09: Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Alstom v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/40

         Action brought on 21 December 2009 — Alstom v Commission
   (Case T-517/09)
   2010/C 51/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alstom (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 7 October 2009 in Case COMP/F/39.129 — Power Transformers; and

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer of 10 December 2009;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, Alstom requests, first, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 Final of 7 October 2009 — Power Transformers, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 EEA, concerning an agreement on European market for power transformers and, saecondly, the annulment of the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer of 10 December 2009 rejecting Alstom’s request to provide a financial guarantee during the proceedings initiated by the present application.
   In support of its action for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 October 2009, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the legal rules applicable to joint and several liability, in that the Commission made two companies jointly and severally liable for the same infringement which the Commission was not able, individually and independently, to hold directly and formally responsible for the infringement;

               —

               an infringement of Article 296 TFEU in that the contested decision is vitiated by:

                           —

                           an insufficient statement of reasons regarding the existence of an effect on trade between Member States;

                           —

                           a failure to state reasons concerning the Commission’s claim that Alstom failed to rebut the presumption that the parent company is liable for the actions of the subsidiary and failed to demonstrate the subsidiary’s independence;

                           —

                           inconsistent reasons regarding the concurrent liability of Alstom and Alstom T&D SA;

               —

               an infringement of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the rules concerning whether parent companies are answerable for infringements committed by their subsidiaries in that the Commission relied on case-law which infringed European Union law and should therefore be excluded for having created, by judicial decision, a principle of irrebutable presumption based not on independence or market behaviour but on economic, legal and organisational links, which are characteristics common to all groups of undertakings.

         In support of its action for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s accounting officer of 10 December 2009, the applicant raises the following pleas in law alleging:

               —

               a lack of legal basis in that the decision to reject the request to provide a financial guarantee during the proceedings for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 October 2009 was not based on law, neither on Council Financial Regulation No 1605/2002 (1) nor on Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, as amended by Regulation No 1248/2006 (2), which implemented it;

               —

               an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that the accounting officer’s decision failed to have regard to the justified hopes resulting from the Commission’s previous practice;

               —

               an infringement of the principle of equality in that the Commission accounting officer’s new approach, in the absence of prior publicity or transitional measures, would place Alstom in an unequal situation compared with those subject to fines who could have provided a financial guarantee prior to that change of approach;

               —

               an infringement of the obligation to publicly correct an error of interpretation where the General Court held that the Commission’s previous practice was not consistent with the applicable financial regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1248/2006 of 7 August 2006 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2006 L 227, p. 3).


title: Case C-224/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Leo Apelt (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of the national driving licence issued by the Member State of residence and issue of a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D by another Member State — Refusal of recognition by the Member State of residence — Obligation to hold a valid licence for vehicles in category B at the time of issue of the licence for vehicles in category D)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Leo Apelt
   (Case C-224/10) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of the national driving licence issued by the Member State of residence and issue of a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D by another Member State - Refusal of recognition by the Member State of residence - Obligation to hold a valid licence for vehicles in category B at the time of issue of the licence for vehicles in category D)
   2011/C 355/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Baden-Baden

      Party to the national criminal proceedings

   Leo Apelt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Baden-Baden — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) and of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18) — Driving licence for category B issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State before a decision to withdraw the national licence but after the facts which justified that withdrawal — Extension of that licence, by the Member State of issue, to category D after expiry of the period during which no new national licence could be applied for — Possibility for the Member State of residence to refuse to recognise the validity of that licence, basing that refusal on the lack of a valid licence for category B at the time when the licence for category D was issued

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(2), 5(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a host Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence for vehicles in categories B and D issued by another Member State, first, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category B in disregard of the normal residence condition and after his driving licence issued by the first Member State had been confiscated by the police authorities in that first Member State but before the right to drive was withdrawn by court order in that first Member State, and, second, if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category D after that withdrawal by court order and after the expiry of the ban on the issue of a new driving licence.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


20.2.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/33
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               register of Case T-141/98: Filippos Pierros v. Commission
Case T-140/98: H v. Commission of the European                     of the European Communities.
Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 340, 7.11.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-167/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/75)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/98 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       (1999/C 48/74)
                                                                   By order of 27 November 1998, the President of the Third
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-167/98: Luc Verheyden v. Commission of the
By order of 18 November 1998, the President of the                 European Communities.
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                  (1) OJ C 378, 5.12.1998.


title: Case T-340/11: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Limitation — Damage for which compensation may be awarded — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/6

         Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission
   (Case T-340/11) (1)

   (Action for damages - State aid - Limitation - Damage for which compensation may be awarded - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
   2012/C 373/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyons, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages brought on the basis of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of the unlawful decision of the Commission of 10 November concerning State aid N 679/97 and, secondly, on account of an alleged infringement of the principle of sound administration stemming from a failure on the part of the Commission to compensate for the harmful effects of that decision

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case F-6/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA (Civil service — Action for damages — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — M v EMA
   (Case F-6/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Action for damages - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2011/C 340/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Re:

   An action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicant following an accident in the workplace which was the result of the breach by the EMA of its obligations concerning the health and safety of workers arising from the European and UK rules.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               M shall bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 37.


title: Case C-131/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014  — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014 — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
   (Case C-131/14)
   2014/C 194/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

      Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

      Question referred

   On a proper construction of Regulations No 1047/2001 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) is conduct such as that engaged in by Community operator A (Malvi sas) prohibited, and does it constitute an abuse of law and conduct designed to evade tax, where Community operator A (Malvi sas) — a company which does not hold an import licence or which has exhausted its own quota share — purchases certain consignments of goods from another Community operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which in turn has purchased them from a third-country supplier (Bananaservice srl), the goods being transferred as foreign stocks to another Community operator C (L’Olivo Maria) — a company which holds a licence under the quota because it meets the requisite criteria — which, without transferring its own licence, releases the goods for free circulation in the European Union in order to transfer them, after customs clearance and in return for appropriate remuneration, lower than the specific duty for imports outside the quota, to operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which finally sells them to operator A (Malvi sas)?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 of 30 May 2001 introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin and establishing the method for managing tariff quotas for garlic imported from third countries (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 35).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case F-135/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Daniela Smadja v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/35

         Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Daniela Smadja v Commission
   (Case F-135/07)
   (2008/C 37/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniela Smadja (New Delhi, India) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission on the appointment of the applicant, an official initially graded A*15, step 4, in that it fixes her grade at Grade A*15, step 1, following her re-appointment to the post of Director of Directorate B of RELEX, after the annulment of her first appointment. Application for compensation for material and non-material damage
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the appointment of the applicant of 21 December 2006, in that it grades her as Director at Grade A*15, step 1, and fixes her length of service in that step as from 1 November 2005, following her re-appointment on 15 November 2005 to the post of Director of Directorate B (Multilateral relations and human rights) of RELEX, a re-appointment which followed annulment of her first appointment to the same post in Case T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission;

               —

               order the defendant to pay as compensation for material and non-material harm, and damage to the applicant's career, a sum of EUR 25 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-331/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted by the Republic of Poland to Technologie Buczek Group — Commission decision declaring that aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-331/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted by the Republic of Poland to Technologie Buczek Group - Commission decision declaring that aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 179/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the Commission Decision of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for the steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (State aid C(2007) 5087) (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26) — No immediate and effective implementation of that decision — Implementation not absolutely impossible

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-318/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/26

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-318/06)
   (2006/C 212/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting, and, in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2001/86/EC into domestic law expired on 8 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 294, p. 22.


title: Action brought on 10 September 1998 by SA Image Création against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-142/98)

text:
C 340/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
claim, first, that the Council failed to consult the                for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
European Parliament for a second time on the                        rue de Cessange.
modifications made by the Council to the Commission's
proposal for a regulation dated 8 April 1994 and that the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Community has no jurisdiction to legislate in
the North-East Atlantic.                                            Ð annul the decision of 29 October 1997 of the Brussels
                                                                        office responsible for settling claims refusing prior
Second, the contested regulation is contrary to the aims of             authorisation for reimbursement of subsistence
the common fisheries policy and the regulations                         expenses in connection with treatment at the Quiberon
implementing it.                                                        thalassotherapy centre;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Third, the contested regulation should be annulled in so
far as it infringes the following higher principles of law:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the right to freedom to carry on a commercial activity            By the contested decision a request for prior authorisation
    in so far as the prohibition set out in the regulation at       to undergo treatment at a spa from 25 October to
    issue prevents the applicants from carrying on their            3 November 1997 was refused on the ground that the
    activity of fishing for white tuna using drift-nets;            treatment centre chosen did not provide treatment for the
                                                                    medical condition in question.
Ð the principle of proportionality set out in Article 3b of
    the Treaty, in view of the disproportionate and                 The applicant submits that this decision is vitiated by an
    manifestly inappropriate nature of the contested                abuse of rights and breaches the fundamental principle of
    measure in the light of the aim pursued, namely the             freedom to choose a doctor and place of treatment. The
    conservation of fishing resources;                              defendant cannot refuse on the basis of exclusively
                                                                    budgetary considerations to recognise the quality of the
                                                                    treatment given in a medical establishment.
Ð the principle of non-discrimination set out in
    Article 40(3) of the Treaty, in so far as the provisions
    of the new Articles 11, 11a, 11b and 11c of Council             Moreover, the decision is vitiated by a manifest error of
    Regulation (EC) No 894/97 do not apply to fishing in            assessment since the treatment centre chosen is recognised,
    the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the éresund, nor to               both by the competent national authorities and by doctors
    salmon fishing using drift-nets.                                specialising in the field of the particular complaint from
                                                                    which the applicant suffers, as competent to provide the
                                                                    appropriate treatment.
Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
is vitiated by manifest error and is of an arbitrary nature         Finally, the defendant has failed to fulfil the legitimate
in so far as it was not adopted in order to ensure a                expectation the applicant was entitled to have as a result
rational and responsible use of available fishing resources,        of the information provided by the department responsible
but responds to the pressure from certain Member States             and has disregarded the obligation to provide the
and international public opinion to prohibit certain                applicant with a relevant statement of reasons establishing
Member States from fishing for certain species, in the              a cogent link between the findings of its medical officer
present case tuna and sword fish, using drift-nets and by a         and the conclusion it reached.
misuse of powers, in so far as it was adopted with the aim
of putting an end to Community controls on compliance
with the rules.
                                                                    Action brought on 10 September 1998 by SA Image
                                                                    CreÂation against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by H' against the                                     (Case T-142/98)
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (98/C 340/51)
                        (Case T-140/98)
                         (98/C 340/50)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 10 September
An action against the Commission of the European                    1998 by SA Image CreÂation, established in Brussels,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   represented by Georges Vandersanden, Eric Gillet and
Instance of the European Communities on 7 September                 Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
1998 by H', represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and                    in Luxembourg at the premises of Fiduciaire Myson
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address         SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 340/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Finally, the applicant points out that the purpose for
                                                                   which the Community funding was granted was actually
                                                                   achieved in the stipulated budgetary context and,
Ð annul the decision adopted by the European                       consequently, the defendant's interest cannot be affected
     Commission on 10 June 1998, sent by registered post           by the maintenance of the payments made at the time. It
     on 7 July 1998 and received by the applicant on 9 July        concludes that the annulment of those payments, by the
     1998, demanding repayment of the sum of ECU                   unforeseeable decision to demand repayment of certain
     135 548 and, in so far as is necessary, annul the             sums more than five years after the conclusion of the
     measures implementing that decision;                          project, was made with blatant disregard for the principle
                                                                   of proportionality.
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that in 1990, in the context of the           Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Michael
action programme for the European Year of Tourism                  Cendrowicz against the Commission of the European
(EYT), the Commission granted it a Community financial                                      Communities
contribution towards its project Europuzzle Ð pays de
                                                                                (Case T-143/98)
l'Est'. A first instalment of 80 % of the contribution was
paid in 1991, and the balance of 20 % was paid on                                          (98/C 340/52)
13 March 1992, following the report submitted to the
Commission by the applicant on the use of the financial
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
contribution in question.
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant points out that, since the payment of the            Communities was brought before the Court of First
balance, no observations concerning the regularity of the          Instance of the European Communities on 11 September
payments in respect of the project have been made to it by         1998 by Michael Cendrowicz, residing in Brussels,
the Commission. In July 1998, however, it received a letter        represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
from the Commission demanding repayment of part of the             address for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Community subsidy, the contested decision in the present           SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
case.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant submits that the contested decision was
adopted in breach of the rights of the defence, in so far as,
since it was never informed of the allegations made by the         Ð annul the undated decision of the Commission
European Commission in respect of the regularity of the                 rejecting the application made by the applicant for
payment of the financial aid received by it, it was not                 post COM/98/97 (Head of Unit 1 Ð India, Nepal,
possible for it usefully to submit its comments on that                 Bhutan, Sri Lanka, in Directorate C of Directorate-
matter.                                                                 General IB), receipt of which was acknowledged by
                                                                        him on 16 September 1997;
The applicant maintains, furthermore, that the contested
decision breaches the principles of legal certainty and the        Ð annul the Commission's decision of 9 August 1997
protection of legitimate expectations. It points out that,              appointing another person to that post;
pursuant to the decision granting the financial
contribution and the statement by the recipient of a               Ð order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way
financial contribution, it undertook to keep supporting                 of compensation for the non-material damage suffered
documents for the purposes of checks for five years. After              by him as a result of the illegality of the contested
that five year period, which began at the latest when the               decisions, the sum of BFR 100 000, subject to increase
project was concluded (that is to say when the balance                  or decrease during the course of the proceedings;
was paid), it was no longer required to keep the
supporting documents and the Commission therefore no
longer had the right to carry out checks. In so far as those       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
checks constitute the basis for a possible challenge to the
sum or a part of the sum allocated, that means that at the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
end of those five years, on 12 March 1997, the defendant
could no longer demand repayment and the applicant
could rely on the apparent legality of the payments and            The applicant, a grade A 4 official, contests the rejection
claim to be entitled to keep them.                                 of his application for the post described above. He states
                                                                   in that regard that virtually all his career has been spent in
                                                                   the performance of duties relating to Asian countries and
The applicant also considers that the contested decision is        that he was the acting Head of Unit IB/C/1 following the
vitiated by an error of reasoning, in so far as the criticisms     retirement of the Head of Unit, his hierarchical superior,
on which it is based have no factual basis.                        who was a grade A 3 official at that time.


title: Case T-67/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2008 — Elini v OHIM — Rolex (Elini)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2008 — Elini v OHIM — Rolex (Elini)
   (Case T-67/06) (1)

   (2008/C 223/103)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case F-23/10: Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Allen v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/58

      Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Allen v Commission
      (Case F-23/10)
      (2010/C 161/93)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Finola Allen (Armação de Pera, Portugal) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         The subject matter and description of the proceedings

      The annulment of the decision rejecting an application for recognition of serious illness.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should order:

                  —

                  The annulment of the 30 June 2009 decision rejecting her application for recognition of serious illness and, if necessary, the annulment of the 17 July 2009 decision;

                  —

                  if needed, the annulment of the 8 January 2010 decision rejecting the Appellant's complaint;

                  —

                  by consequence, the recognition of serious illness for her illnesses stated in her 19 May application as complemented on 2 July 2009 and the full coverage as of 1 July 2009;

                  —

                  on a subsidiary basis, the coverage of the sickness insurance until 10 July 2009;

                  —

                  the payment of damages evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 1 Euro;

                  —

                  the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-109/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Dittert v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/47

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Dittert v Commission
   (Case F-109/06)
   (2006/C 281/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to award a number of priority points to the applicant which was insufficient to allow his promotion in the 2005 promotion procedure and not to promote him in that promotion procedure, as confirmed by the decision of 6 June 2006, rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/73/06

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant puts forward a single plea: the contested decision is tainted by serious defects resulting from a procedural irregularity and from an infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   Following a technical problem, which remains unexplained, the applicant's file was not taken into account by his Directorate-General when it was allocating priority points in the 2005 promotion procedure. This failure to take the applicant into account constitutes a procedural flaw and an infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   Those irregularities were such as to invalidate the 2005 promotion procedure in so far as it concerned the applicant, and to harm the applicant's interests, since he was allocated fewer priority points than his own superiors (in this case, the Director-General of DG Competition) wished to give him, once the technical problem had been detected. In effect, according to the applicant, DG Competition assured him that, absent the technical problem, it would have allocated to him a sufficient number of points to ensure his promotion to grade AD9, namely 7 points; the DG also expressly asked the A* Promotion Committee to remedy the applicant's situation by allocating that number of points to him. Notwithstanding this, the A* Promotion Committee proposed the allocation of only 4 ‘points awarded on appeal’ to the applicant, and the Appointing Authority followed this advice, with the result that the applicant was allocated an insufficient number of points to allow his promotion to grade AD9 in the 2005 exercise.
   The applicant claims that, rather than the remedying of the situation created by the technical problem, the intervention of the A* Promotion Committee and of the Appointing Authority themselves gave rise to procedural irregularities. Thus the A* Promotion Committee exceeded its authority and its powers in proposing to allocate a lower number of points to the applicant than had been proposed by his superiors, once the technical problem had been discovered. Furthermore, both the A* Promotion Committee and the Appointing Authority failed to undertake a real consideration of the applicant's comparative merits.


title: Case T-261/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Brinkmann v Germany (Interim measure — Clear lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Brinkmann v Germany
   (Case T-261/10 R)
   (Interim measure - Clear lack of jurisdiction)
   2010/C 274/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Norbert Brinkmann (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: R. Wiegers, lawyer)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Re:

   Application seeking to suspend application of Paragraphs 47 and 48(a) of the German Federal code on notaries (Bundesnotarordnung) with regard to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


C 19/44                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25.1.2003
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                           T-264/01 ( 1)                                   T-331/01: Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation
                                                                           Services Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
                         (2003/C 19/81)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                    (Language of the case: French)
By order of 5 November 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01: Léon Rappe v Commission of                            Removal from the register of Case T-172/02 (1)
the European Communities.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/84)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001 and C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Fourth
        Removal from the register of Case T-294/01 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2003/C 19/82)                                    T-172/02: Laurent Druet v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
By order of 24 October 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-294/01: Lucía Aparicio Chofré v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-199/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-331/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 22 October 2002 the President of the Fourth
                         (2003/C 19/83)                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the case: English)                         T-199/02: Michel van Beek v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-432/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 2 November 2009 — Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 2 November 2009 — Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA
   (Case C-432/09)
   2010/C 24/44
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Airfield NV

      Respondent: Agicoa Belgium BVBA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 93/83 (1) preclude the requirement that a supplier of digital satellite television must obtain the consent of the copyright holders in the case where a broadcasting organisation transmits its programme-carrying signals, either by a fixed link or by an encrypted satellite signal, to a supplier of digital satellite television which is independent of the broadcasting organisation, and that supplier has those signals encrypted and beamed to a satellite by a company associated with it, after which those signals are beamed down, with the consent of the broadcasting organisation, as part of a package of television programmes and therefore bundled, to the satellite television supplier’s subscribers, who are able to view the programmes simultaneously and unaltered by means of a decryption card or smart card provided by the satellite television supplier?

               2.

               Does Directive 93/83 preclude the requirement that a supplier of digital satellite television must obtain the consent of the copyright holders in the case where a broadcasting organisation transmits its programme-carrying signals to a satellite in accordance with the instructions of a digital television supplier which is independent of the broadcasting organisation, after which those signals are beamed down, with the consent of the broadcasting organisation, as part of a package of television programmes and therefore bundled, to the satellite television supplier’s subscribers, who are able to view the programmes simultaneously and unaltered by means of a decryption card or smart card provided by the satellite television supplier?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/11

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-33/15)
   (2016/C 216/08)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Clémence Perrin and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 14 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 14 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-257/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma (Article 28 EC — Directive 76/768/EEC — Protection of health — Cosmetic products — Importation — Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma
   (Case C-257/06) (1)

   (Article 28 EC - Directive 76/768/EEC - Protection of health - Cosmetic products - Importation - Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation)
   (2008/C 64/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Roby Profumi Srl

      Respondent: Comune di Parma
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32) — Ready-for-sale products imported from other Member States — National provisions requiring importers to communicate a full and detailed list of the substances contained in the product
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.