title: Case T-589/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/43

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-589/08)
   (2009/C 69/97)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions of the Commission to evaluate the applicant's bids as not successful and award the contracts to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 920 000 EUR to be increased up to 1 700 000 EUR depending on the final amount of the CITL project;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant's decisions to reject its bids submitted in response to a call for an open tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 regarding the ‘Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (1) and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment while evaluating the three bids submitted by the applicant to the three Lots of the tender respectively.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to observe the principles of transparency and equal treatment and therefore infringed relevant provisions reflecting these principles such as Articles 92 and 100 of the financial regulation (2). Moreover, the applicant argues that the contracting authority infringed its obligation to sufficiently state reasons for its decision. It claims as well that the Commission failed to provide it with additional information that it requested after the award decision regarding the merits of the successful tenderer. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the contracting authority applied criteria that were not set out in advance and thus were unknown to the candidates.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 72-096229.

      (2)  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 L 248, p. 1).


title: Case C-491/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2006 — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/51

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2006 — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet
   (Case C-491/06)
   (2006/C 326/104)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret (Denmark)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Danske Svineproducenter

      Defendant: Justitsministeriet
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Chapter I, point A(2)(b), and Chapter VII, point 48(3), third indent, of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport (1), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not entitled to introduce national transitional rules under which, in the case of the transport of pigs of 40 kg and not more than 110 kg where the transport time exceeds eight hours, there must be an internal height for each deck — measured from the highest point on the floor to the lowest point on the ceiling — of at least 100 cm where a mechanical ventilation system is used?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Chapter I, point A(2)(b), and Chapter VII, point 48(3), third indent, of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not entitled to introduce national rules under which, in the case of the transport of pigs of 40 kg and over, where the total journey time exceeds eight hours, means of transport must be used which — for example by means of a lifting roof combined with mobile decks or an equivalent construction — ensure at all times that an internal inspection height of at least 140 cm may be established for each deck — measured from the highest point on the floor to the lowest point on the ceiling — while the internal height of the other decks where animals are transported on several decks must constantly be at least 92 cm, where the pigs transported have an average weight of 100 kg and a mechanical ventilation system is used?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Chapter VI, point 47(D), ‘Pigs’, of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not entitled to introduce national rules under which, in the case of transports of more than eight hours' duration, there must be at least 0.50 m2 per 100 kg of pig?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 concerning the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-136/03: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of the European Union (Officials — Action for damages — Refusal of promotion — Emotional harassment — Duty of assistance)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-136/03: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Refusal of promotion - Emotional harassment - Duty of assistance)
   (2004/C 239/45)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-136/03: Robert Charles Schochaert, a former official of the Council of the European Union, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.A. Martin, avocat, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by reason of the Council's repeated refusal to promote the applicant to Grade B1 and in respect of alleged emotional harassment — the Court of First Instance: P. Lindh, single Judge; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/42

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
   (Case T-148/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellants

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission;

         And, giving judgment itself,

               —

               annul the decisions contained in the pension receipts for the month of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the appellants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by interpreting the clear and precise provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) in the light of the alleged ‘real intention of the legislature’ as to the scope of the suspension of the update mechanism, in 2013 and 2014, of pensions and remuneration. In doing so, the CST made an interpretation contra legem of Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations and of its rules for implementing, set out in Annex XI of those Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law, in so far as the conditions as laid down in the Staff Regulations to carry out the intermediate update at issue, provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations, had not been met and that the Commission, by carrying out that update, had misused its powers. After finding, in the judgment under appeal, that the previous correction coefficient had been incorrectly calculated in Council Regulation (EU) No 1416/2013 of 17 December 2013 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2013 the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, the CST erred in law by holding that the principle of equal treatment authorised the appointing authority to carry out the intermediate update at issue, contrary to the doctrine of withdrawal of illegal administrative acts that give rise to a right or similar benefits.


title: Case T-275/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY24) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MPAY24 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Correction of the decision by the Board of Appeal — Non-existent act — Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY24)
   (Case T-275/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MPAY24 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Correction of the decision by the Board of Appeal - Non-existent act - Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2012/C 13/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H.-G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav and mPAY24 GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 1102/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case F-121/15: Action brought on 21 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/57

         Action brought on 21 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-121/15)
   (2015/C 354/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised in the vacancy notice COM/2014/2036, on the basis of the failure to comply with the condition requiring a six-month break between contracts prior to the recruitment of a member of staff who has previously been employed under a contract at grade AT2c, as provided for in note D(2005)18064 of 28 July 2005 of DG HR, and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 22 May 2014 in which DG HR prevented the recruitment of the applicant;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 14 November 2014 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, subject to being re-evaluated in the future, at EUR 3 26  275, that compensation to be paid together with indexed default interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-421/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Performing Right Society v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Performing Right Society v Commission
   (Case T-421/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Performing Right Society Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and M. Nissen, lawyers, and G.L. Eclair-Heath, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and R. Vallina Hoset, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by L. Uusitalo and L. Rechardt, lawyers); RTL Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); CLT-UFA SA (Luxembourg); Music Choice Europe Ltd (London); ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG (Unterföhring, Germany); Modern Times Group MTG AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (London); and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV (VPRT) (Berlin, Germany) (represented initially by M. Hansen, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and O. Zafar, Solicitor, then by M. Hansen, A.W. Weitbrecht, J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers, and J.J. Kallaugher, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the European Commission’s request for measures of organisation of procedure;

               2.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Performing Right Society Ltd;

               3.

               Annuls Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, in so far as it refers to Article 3 of that decision, as regards Performing Right Society;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               5.

               Orders Performing Right Society to bear half of its own costs, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the interventions in support of the Commission;

               6.

               Orders Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) to bear half of its own costs;

               7.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay half of those incurred by Performing Right Society, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the interventions in support of the Commission, and to pay half of those incurred by SGAE;

               8.

               Orders the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Performing Right Society in connection with IFPI’s intervention;

               9.

               Orders RTL Group SA, CLT-UFA, Music Choice Europe Ltd, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, Modern Times Group MTG AB, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Performing Right Society in connection with their interventions.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-174/09: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-174/09) (1)

   2010/C 11/37

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-128/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/24

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-128/17)
   (2017/C 151/31)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC; (1)

               —

               in the alternative, annul that directive in part, in so far as it concerns the establishment of national emission reduction commitments for 2030 onwards;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland puts forward the following pleas in law against the contested directive:
   1.   Breach of the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU)

   The defendant institutions worked on the adoption of the contested directive in a non-transparent manner, treating the Member States unequally and imposing exclusively on certain Member States additional reduction commitments which were not justified by cost-efficiency considerations or the assumptions adopted for the methodology of commitment allocation. The imposition on Poland (and on two other Member States) — prior to the conclusion of a final agreement with the European Parliament — of new emission reduction levels aimed at meeting a more ambitious general reduction level had the effect of virtually excluding Poland from the negotiations which determined the final shape of the national emission reduction commitments from 2030 onwards.
   In addition, the defendant institutions deprived Poland of the opportunity to effectively validate the data concerning Poland, which served as the basis for establishing the national emission reduction commitments from 2030 onwards, and thereby infringed Poland’s right to have its position considered.
   2.   Breach of the principles of openness and transparency (Article 15 TFEU) and failure to provide sufficient reasons (Article 296 TFEU).

   The Republic of Poland claims that the underlying assumptions that formed the basis for setting the national emission reduction commitments for 2030 onwards were not made available or published. No information was provided on the projection assumptions concerning the technological structure for individual sectors, although those assumptions were in turn used in the emission projections for 2030. In the absence of this information, in turn, it is impossible to validate the reliability of the emission projections that were adopted for 2030. Secondly, it is unclear which formula was used to calculate the general health objective of reducing mortality in the European Union into an emission reduction commitment for the European Union as a whole and for individual Member States.
   As a consequence, the reasoning of the institutions which adopted the directive was not presented in a clear and unambiguous manner with regard to the abovementioned reduction commitments.
   3.   Infringement of the obligation to carry out a proper analysis of the effect of the contested directive on individual Member States and to sufficiently assess the impact of its implementation.

   The Republic of Poland claims that, given the expected broad effects of the emission reduction commitments for 2030 and beyond on the economy and society of the Member States, the impact assessment prepared by the Commission is insufficient.
   The impact assessment indicates a link between the achievement of the objectives of the directive and the structural changes aimed at reducing the share of carbon as a fuel in the energy and municipal and residential sector. However, the impact assessment does not include a detailed analysis of whether the expected effect of implementing the commitments will be significantly affected by a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. This is particularly important because confirmation of a significant effect would mean that the European Union legislature should have adopted the contested directive on a different legal basis, namely on the basis of Article 192(2) TFEU, instead of on the basis of Article 192(1) TFEU.
   4.   Breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU).

   The defendant institutions did not take into consideration the serious socio-economic costs that will be generated in Poland by implementing the obligations to reduce the emission of particular pollutants as from 2030. As a result of this, the implementation by Poland of the reduction commitments from 2030 onwards is liable to have serious negative socio-economic consequences for Poland. The expenditure incurred in order to implement those commitments may prove to be disproportionate to the expected effects.
   It was not obviously necessary to set such high national emission reduction commitments for 2030 onwards in the directive in order to achieve the objectives set out in the directive.
   5.   Breach of the principle of the equality of Member States (Article 4(2) TEU) and of the principle of balanced development (fourth indent of Article 191(3) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 191(2) TFEU).

   The emission reduction obligations imposed on individual Member States for the period from 2030 do not take into consideration the diverse economic situation, technological conditions and social conditions of the Member States, including the scale of the investments required in the different regions of the European Union. The reduction commitments were established using a standardised method, without regard to the real and diverse economic and social situation of individual Member States.
   In addition, in establishing national emission reduction commitments for individual Member States for 2030 and onwards, the defendant institutions probably did not properly take into consideration the cross-border inflow of significant quantities of pollutants from areas in the immediate vicinity of the European Union into certain Member States, which may give rise to unequal treatment of Member States which have borders with third countries in comparison with States not concerned by the problem of the inflow of pollutants from outside the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 344, p. 1.


title: Case T-178/13: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Jaczewski v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Interest in bringing proceedings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/41

         Order of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Jaczewski v Commission
   (Case T-178/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Interest in bringing proceedings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 409/58
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grzegorz Jaczewski (Bielany, Poland) (represented by: M. Goss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 5049 final of 24 July 2012 approving the grant of complementary national direct payments in Poland for 2012.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Grzegorz Jaczewski is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-205/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 3a — Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State — Football World Cup — Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law — Statement of reasons — Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Right to property)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-205/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)
   2013/C 260/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and A. Joachimowicz and J. Stuyck, advocaten), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and T. de la Mare QC)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-68/08 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-183/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/31

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-183/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings)
   2013/C 225/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: P. Moser QC and E. Grieves, Barrister, instructed by H. Miller, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, E. Regan SC and N. Travers BL)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission, by which the General Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20) — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09 Ayadi v Commission in so far as the order decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment brought before the General Court by Mr Chafiq Ayadi;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule again on Mr Chafiq Ayadi’s action for annulment;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case T-752/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/40

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-752/15)
   (2016/C 068/51)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C. Dede)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of which they were notified by letter of 29 October 2015 under reference DIGIT/R/3/SDP/PT 5107460 (2015), by which the Commission ranked in sixth place the applicants’ tender for one of the three individual lots, specifically Lot 3, in the context of the open procurement procedure under No DIGIT/R3/PO/2015/0008 entitled ‘Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV)’;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 of the framework agreement STIS IV;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas for annulment and main arguments

   According to the applicants, the contested decision must be annulled as it provided a defective statement of reasons: (i) as regards the appraisal of the applicants’ technical offer, (ii) as regards the reasons for which the financial offers of the successful companies and consortia were not considered abnormally low, and on account of infringement by the Commission of the contractual documents and EU law in relation to the existence of manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case C-463/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Stadion Amsterdam CV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Stadion Amsterdam CV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-463/16)
   (2016/C 410/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Must Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that where a service, which for VAT purposes constitutes one single service, comprises two or more concrete and specific constituent elements to which, if they had been provided as separate services, different VAT rates would apply, the levying of VAT in respect of that composite service should take place according to the separate rates applicable to those elements if the fee for the service can be split in correct proportion to those constituent elements?

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


title: Case T-266/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/27

         Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)
   (Case T-266/17)
   (2017/C 202/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Party applying for the mark at issue: Applicant

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘UROAKUT’ — application No 13 854 146

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1221/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.

      Plea in law

               —

               infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-182/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/32

         Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)
   (Case T-182/17)
   (2017/C 161/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AKANTO’ — Application for registration No 13 289 781

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 531/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (European trade mark No 13 289 781) in respect of the goods in class 5 described in the application for registration;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-189/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Definition of the place where the harmful event occurred )

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA
   (Case C-189/08) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Definition of the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’)
   2009/C 220/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zuid-Chemie BV

      Defendant: Philippo’s Mineralenfabriek NV/SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place where the harmful event occurred — Place where the event which gave rise to the harm occurred (‘Handlungsort’) and place where the harm arose (‘Erfolgsort’) — Connecting criteria.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, the words ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 271, 29.10.2005

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/35

         (2005/C 281/63)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

      OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

      OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

      OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

      OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

      OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-302/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 June 2012 — X; other party: Minister van Financiën

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 20 June 2012 — X; other party: Minister van Financiën
   (Case C-302/12)
   2012/C 287/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Other party: Minister van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the exercise of powers of taxation by two Member States, in particular the imposition of a registration tax on a motor vehicle, unlimited in circumstances in which a citizen of the European Union lives, according to national laws, in two Member States, and in which that citizen actually uses — in both Member States and on a permanent basis — a motor vehicle that belongs to her?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, can the principle of proportionality in the context of the imposition of a registration tax in a case such as this have a corrective effect, and, if so, does that principle then have the effect that one or both of the Member States is/are required to restrict the exercise of their powers of taxation, and how should any such restriction be manifested?


title: Case F-114/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 16 July 2014  — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (Civil service — Commission’s staff committee — Central committee — Appointment of members of the Luxembourg local section to the central staff committee — Revocation by the local section of the authority of one of its members appointed to the central committee — Refusal by the appointing authority to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Complaint out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/74

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 16 July 2014 — Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission
   (Case F-114/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Commission’s staff committee - Central committee - Appointment of members of the Luxembourg local section to the central staff committee - Revocation by the local section of the authority of one of its members appointed to the central committee - Refusal by the appointing authority to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Complaint out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/124
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the appointing authority refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the decision of the Luxembourg local staff committee revoking the authority granted to a person mandated to represent it within the Commission’s central staff committee.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Klar and Mr Fernandez Fernandez are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 53.


title: Case C-75/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto
   (Case C-75/15)
   (2015/C 138/54)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Markkinaoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Viiniverla Oy

      Defendant: Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

      Questions referred

               1.

               When assessing where there has been an ‘evocation’, within the meaning of Article 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16) (1), should reference be made to an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect?

               2.

               When assessing whether to prohibit the use of the name Verlados used to market nationally a spirit drink distilled from apples in order to protect the geographical indication Calvados, what importance should be given to the following facts in the interpretation of the concept of ‘evocation’ in Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 and the application of that regulation:

                           a)

                           the first part of the name Verlados, Verla, is a village in Finland whose name may be recognised by Finnish consumers;

                           b)

                           the first part of the name Verlados, Verla, refers to the producer of Verlados Viiniverla Oy;

                           c)

                           Verlados is a local product produced in Verla village of which a few hundred litres are sold each year in the winery’s own restaurant and a limited amount by order from the State-owned alcohol business referred to in the Law on Alcohol;

                           d)

                           the words Verlados and Calados have only one syllable in common (dos) out of three, although the last four letters (ados) of the words, that is half of the total number of letter in each word, are identical?

               3.

               If there is deemed to be an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008, may the use of the name Verlados nevertheless be authorised on one of the grounds mentioned above or on other grounds, such as that Finnish consumers at least are unlikely to imagine that Verlados is produced in France?

      (1)  OJ L 39, p. 16


title: Case T-734/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/36

         Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
   (Case T-734/15 P)
   (2016/C 068/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: FE (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by FE in Case F-119/14 as unfounded;

               —

               decide that each of the parties is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings;

               —

               order FE to pay the costs of the proceedings brought before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

               1.

               First ground, alleging a number of errors of law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and a distortion of the documents in the file in the selection board’s interpretation and application of the condition for admission relating to minimum professional experience.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging an error of law in the CST’s conclusion that the Appointing Authority committed a manifest error of assessment.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging an error of law and a number of breaches of the obligation to state reasons committed by the CST in ordering the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 to the applicant at first instance.


title: Case T-617/14: Action brought on 10 August 2014  — Pro Asyl v EASO

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/48

         Action brought on 10 August 2014 — Pro Asyl v EASO
   (Case T-617/14)
   2014/C 409/68
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pro Asyl Bundesweite Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Flüchtlinge e.V. (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 10 June 2014 — EASO/ED/2014/134 in so far as access to the operating plan for sending an EU-asylum support team to Bulgaria (‘Operating Plan on Bulgaria’) was refused and the applicant was not guaranteed access to the register of documents under Article 11 of Regulation No 1049/2001.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to access information
               The applicant claims that there is no exception to the applicant’s general right to access information under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) with respect to the ‘Operating Plan on Bulgaria’ at issue in the proceedings.
               In that regard, the applicant claims that the refusal to grant access to information is not capable of being justified in particular on the ground of protection of deliberations leading to the creation of a document under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since the ‘Operating Plan’ was completed.
               In addition, the ‘Operating Plan on Bulgaria’ is not a third-party document within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since the defendant and the Republic of Bulgaria drew up the plan together. Consequently, the ‘Operating Plan’ did not originate from that Member State for the purposes of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of access to the register
               The applicant claims in addition that the contested decision should also be annulled since it refused the applicant access to the electronic register of documents in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation No 1049/2001 or Article 11 of Decision No 6 of the EASO management board.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-166/12: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RENOVALIA — Earlier national word marks RENOVA ENERGY and RENOVAENERGY — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/18

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)
   (Case T-166/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RENOVALIA - Earlier national word marks RENOVA ENERGY and RENOVAENERGY - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 081/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Juan Bolívar Cerezo (Granada, Spain) (represented by: I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Renovalia Energy, SA (Villarobledo, Spain) (represented by: A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 663/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Renovalia Energy, SA and Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case C-404/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
19.2.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 47/13
   number of petrol stations operated will (potentially) result         — Infringement of Article 10 EC, of Article 87(1) EC, of the
   in the same price reduction per individual petrol station as             de minimis rule and of the principles of legal certainty,
   the single grant of the de minimis amount to a petrol                    equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expec-
   station regarded as a separate undertaking. In neither case              tations, together with non-compliance with the obligation
   will there be any difference in the effects on trade and                 requiring the terms of decisions, within the meaning of
   competition between Member States.                                       Article 249 EC, to be specified with sufficient particularity
                                                                            and failure to comply with the obligation, laid down by
— In the alternative, infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the              Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of reasons, all of
   de minimis rule and of the principles of legal certainty,                the foregoing in connection with the obligation to seek
   equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expec-                  repayment of the subsidies: it is not possible to ascertain
   tations, non-compliance with the obligation requiring the                from the decision which amounts are to be reclaimed
   terms of decisions, within the meaning of Article 249 EC,                from which persons. More fundamentally, the Netherlands
   to be specified with sufficient particularity, and failure to            Government considers that Article 10 EC and the prin-
   comply with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC,                 ciples of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
   to provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in               expectations preclude any possibility of reclaiming subsi-
   connection with the division of petrol stations into the                 dies already granted pursuant to the Netherlands rules in
   categories of ‘independent’ and ‘company-owned/com-                      force. The Commission was aware — at any rate as from
   pany-operated’ undertakings.                                             18 August 1997 — of the rules in force, of the fact that
— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule and              those rules had been implemented with effect from 1 July
   of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and the            1997 and of the Netherlands authorities’ view that such
   protection of legitimate expectations, together with failure             implementation was covered by its notice concerning the
   to comply with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC,              de minimis rule. If the Commission took a different view
   to provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in               regarding the meaning of that notice, and if it considered
   connection with the indirect grant of aid to the oil compani-            — notwithstanding the notice on the de minimis rule that
   es, as approved by the Commission in the case of petrol                  the rules in force, like the grant of aid, as provisionally
   stations the exclusive purchasing agreements in respect of               notified on the basis of each individual petrol station,
   which contain a clause providing for a system of price                   needed to be assessed by the Commission in accordance
   controls: the conferment of indirect advantages on the oil               with Article 88(3) EC, then, having regard inter alia to its
   companies, as referred to by the Commission, does not                    obligation under Article 10 EC to cooperate in good faith
   constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.                with the national authorities, it should have pointed this
   That is particularly the case where such conferment of                   out immediately and unambiguously to the Netherlands
   indirect advantages arises solely from contractual relations             authorities. The Commission omitted to do so. Moreover,
   with which the authorities have nothing whatever to do                   such a claim for repayment would conflict, vis-à-vis the
   and of which they themselves are unaware. The national                   recipients of the aid, with the principles of legal certainty
   authorities cannot be required, in the performance of their              and of the protection of legitimate expectations (which the
   functions, invariably to verify such indirect effects, which             national courts are required to respect). The notice on the
   are not apparent to them, let alone to exclude the entry into            de minimis rule created a new category of aid measures, in
   force of such effects in all circumstances. That is the position,        respect of which the requirement that aid be notified
   at any rate, in circumstances such as those of the present               and approved in advance ceased to apply. Undertakings
   case, in which the de minimis rule is applicable.                        receiving non-notified grants of aid no longer needed, in
                                                                            those circumstances, to be concerned about the illegality
— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule                  of the aid granted, at any rate in so far as they had
   and of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and            reasonable grounds for thinking that that aid was covered
   the protection of legitimate expectations, non-compliance                by the de minimis rule.
   with the obligation requiring the terms of decisions, within
   the meaning of Article 249 EC, to be specified with                  (1) Notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (96/C 68/06) (OJ 1996
   sufficient particularity, together with failure to comply                C 68, p. 9).
   with the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC, to
   provide a statement of reasons, all of the foregoing in
   connection with the declaration of the incompatibility of
   the aid as regards petrol stations in respect of which, in
   the Commission’s view, the Netherlands authorities have              Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
   provided no information or only partial information.                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
— Infringement of Article 87(3) EC and failure to comply with                                    (Case C-404/99)
   the obligation, laid down by Article 253 EC, to provide a
   statement of reasons, inasmuch as the Commission, in its                                       (2000/C 47/21)
   assessment of the compatibility of the measures to be
   regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1), failed to       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
   appreciate the environmental objectives of those measures.           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October
   The Netherlands rules were designed to make it possible to           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
   achieve an increase in excise duty, which was regarded as            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
   necessary for the purposes of environmental protection,              and Nicoles Coutrelis, ‘Advocate’, with an address for service
   whilst at the same time avoiding serious repercussions for           in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
   the operators of the petrol stations concerned.                      Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.2.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                        1. Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
— declare that by authorising, under certain conditions, the               obligations under Article 49 et seq. EC by maintaining in
     exclusion from the taxable amount for VAT purposes of                 force the following provisions:
     the ‘service charges’ claimed by certain taxable persons,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              — Article 2, first paragraph, and Article 7 of Decree Law
     under Article 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of Council Directive                     No 454 of 29 January 1934;
     77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (Sixth VAT Directive) (1);
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              — Article 2, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No 7
                                                                               of 15 January 1972;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            — Article 2(4), (6) and (7) of Presidential Decree No 390
                                                                               of 18 April 1994;
Whilst Articles 266(1)(a) and 267-I of the French General Tax
Code (Code Général des Impôts) correctly transpose the                     — Article 4 of Regional Law of Liguria No 40 of 14 July
provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive, the same is not true                    1978;
of an administrative practice which was confirmed by an
instruction issued on 31 December 1976. A tip in the form of               — Article 6(1)(e), (f), (g) and (h), Article 6(4) and Article 7
a ‘service charge’ centralised by the employer forms an integral               of Regional Law of the Veneto No 35 of 2 August
part of the total price paid by the customer by way of                         1988;
consideration for the service provided by the service provider
and it is therefore the total price, including the service charge,         — Article 2, sixth paragraph, Article 4, first indent,
which constitutes the consideration actually received. That                    Article 6, third and fourth paragraphs and Article 10(a)
charge is different from an extra tip freely and spontaneously                 of Regional Law of the Marches No 16 of 12 March
left by the customer for a particular member of staff.                         1979;
In addition, the Commission points out that to allow that                  — Article 4, Article 5, sixth paragraph, subparagraphs (a)
practice amounts to a distortion of competition between those                  and (c), Article 6, first paragraph, Article 8, first and
establishments which operate the ‘service charge’, a distortion                second paragraphs, and Article 16 of Regional Law
resulting from the arbitrary nature of the purely formal                       No 43 of Emilia-Romagna of 26 May 1980;
conditions imposed by the French Government in order to
qualify for the derogation. Those conditions are wholly alien              — Article 4(1)(c), Article 4(2) and Article 15, third para-
to the fundamental criterion for determining the taxable basis                 graph, of Regional Law of Lombardy No 45 of 29 April
for VAT purposes, namely the consideration actually received                   1980;
by the service provider.
                                                                           — Article 3, Article 4 and Article 8, last paragraph, of
( 1) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.                                             Regional Law No 10 of Friuli Venezia Giulia of 23 Feb-
                                                                               ruary 1981;
                                                                           — Article, 2, last paragraph, and Article 6 of Regional
                                                                               Law No 75 of Abruzzo of 13 November 1980;
                                                                           — Article 3, Article 5, Article 6, third and fourth para-
                                                                               graphs, Article 12 and Article 19, first paragraph, of
Action brought on 17 November 1999 by the Com-                                 Provincial Law No 35 of the Autonomous Province of
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                        Trento of 2 September 1978;
                             Republic
                                                                        2. Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                         (Case C-439/99)                                   obligations under Article 49 et seq. and Article 43 et seq.
                                                                           EC by maintaining in force the following provisions:
                          (2000/C 47/22)
                                                                           — Article 3 of Presidential Decree No 7 of 15 January
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                  1972;
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Novemb-
er 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     — Article 2(c) and (d), Article 3(b) and (c), and Article 5(a)
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Maria                       of Regional Law No 12 of Liguria of 3 November
Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by                   1972;
Andrea Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                   — Article 8(1) of Regional Law No 35 of the Veneto of
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      2 August 1988;


title: Case C-470/07: Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-470/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/62)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case C-161/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
8.7.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 192/9
1. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned are required to give evidence as              (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
    witnesses in criminal proceedings concerning services pro-              in order to comply with the obligations laid down in
    vided by them, under the freedom to provide services, in                Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 in Annex III to Council Directive
    the territory of the host Member State in circumstances in              91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
    which employees of credit institutions of the host Member               protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
    State are under a like obligation to give evidence as                   from agricultural sources, the Federal Republic of Germany
    witnesses;                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned who, when interviewed as suspects,
    choose not to rely on their right to remain silent, may             Pleas in law and main arguments
    as suspects make a statement in criminal proceedings
    concerning services provided by them, under the freedom             Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676/EEC prescribes, in conjunction
    to provide services, in the territory of the host Member            with Annex III, maximum amounts, for each farm or livestock
    State in circumstances in which employees of credit                 unit, of manure to be applied to the land per hectare and per
    institutions established in the host Member State have the          year. Under the German provisions (Paragraphs 2(1) and 4(5)
    same right to make a statement as suspects, where they do           of the Düngeverordnung (Manure Regulation)), regard may be
    not or do not wish to rely on their right to remain silent;         had, within specified parameters, to ‘unavoidable production
                                                                        losses’ in the case of farm manure originating from animals
3. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            and to ‘storage losses’ in the case of liquid manure and slurry.
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 As a result, between 10 % and 20 % of the total quantities of
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                nitrogen are regarded as ‘normal’ losses arising from volatisa-
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       tion, and no regard is had to the fact that, to a large extent,
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           those quantities of nitrogen escape into the air and then settle
    this case Belgium), they give evidence concerning services          once again on the ground and on expanses of water, thereby
    provided by them in the territory of the host Member State          contributing to water pollution.
    under the freedom to provide services;
                                                                        The maximum quantities laid down in the directive must apply
4. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            uniformly throughout the Community. Following discussions,
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 the Commission once again referred the question of interpret-
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                ation to the committee provided for in Article 9 of the
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       directive, and confirmed in written communications to the
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and Luxembourg that
    this case Belgium), they make a statement as suspects               the quantities specified in point 2 of Annex III to the directive
    concerning services provided by them in the territory of            are to be regarded as quantities of manure ex storage.
    the host Member State (in this case Belgium) under the
    freedom to provide services, whilst at the same time not
    relying or not wishing to rely on the right to remain silent?       (1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   order of that court of 1 March 2000, in the case of Katia
                            of Germany                                     Beckman against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd
                          (Case C-161/00)                                                         (Case C-164/00)
                          (2000/C 192/16)                                                         (2000/C 192/17)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
ties on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of the European                 Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 1 March
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,             2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 May
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Katia Beckman
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre           against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd, on the following
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                       questions:


title: Case C-7/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-7/09)
   (2009/C 69/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any case, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for transposition of Directive 2006/86/EC, with the exception of Article 10, expired on 1 September 2007. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.


title: Case T-531/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/11

         Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council
   (Case T-531/14)
   2014/C 351/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Limonia Sotiropoulou (Patras, Greece) and 63 others (represented by: K. Khrisogonos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicants in full for the financial loss suffered by them from 1 January 2013 until 31 May 2014 as a result of the unlawful reduction of their main pensions by the decisions of the Council of the European Union referred to, totalling EUR 8 70  504,11;

               —

               order the defendant to pay in full to each of the applicants the sum of EUR 3  000 as compensation for the non-material harm which they suffered as a result of the unlawful reduction of their main pensions by the decisions of the Council of the European Union referred to;

               —

               order the defendant to pay in full the applicants’ legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action concerns an application, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation in respect of the loss and harm which the applicants have sustained as a result of the drastic reduction of their main pensions pursuant to the measures and the interventions in Greece’s pension system provided for in the following unlawful decisions of the Council of the European Union: Decisions 2010/320/ΕU of 8 June 2010 (1), 2010/486/ΕU of 7 September 2010 (2), 2011/57/ΕU of 20 December 2010 (3), 2011/257/ΕU of 7 March 2011 (4), 2011/734/ΕU of 12 July 2011 (5), 2011/791/ΕU of 8 November 2011 (6), 2012/211/EU of 13 March 2012 (7) and 2013/6/ΕU of 4 December 2012 (8). In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning infringement of the principles of conferral and subsidiarity

                           —

                           The applicants submit that, in adopting the contested decisions, which concern inter alia the laying down of detailed measures, polices and interventions in the social security and pension system, the Council exceeded the powers accorded to it by the Treaty and infringed the principles of conferral and subsidiarity as laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Articles 2 to 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. When adopting decisions under Articles 126(9) and 136 TFEU that are addressed to Greece, the Council cannot lay down in detail the policy that Greece must follow in the abovementioned fields, which fall within Greece’s exclusive competence as a Member State of the European Union, and for that reason the abovementioned decisions with that content are unlawful and give rise to non-contractual liability of the European Union to compensate the applicants for the loss and harm resulting from the reduction of their pensions by those unlawful decisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning infringement of fundamental rights laid down in Articles 1, 25 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           The applicants contend that the abovementioned decisions of the Council required measures relating to the pension system to be adopted that fundamentally disturbed the applicants’ financial situation and resulted in the reversal of situations which they had sought in good faith. The drastic pension cuts and reductions that were imposed in implementation of the measures specified in the abovementioned decisions of the Council resulted in a radical downward equalisation of social security protection and in a rapid deterioration in the standard of living of pensioners, including the applicants, who because of the reductions in their pensions were deprived of the greater part of their previous disposable income. The enactment and implementation of the reductions at issue resulted in direct infringement of the applicants’ right to human dignity, of their right as elderly persons to lead a life of dignity and independence and of their right to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as old age, rights which are directly enshrined in Articles 1, 25 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; that renders the decisions at issue unlawful per se and gives rise to non-contractual liability of the European Union to compensate the applicants for the loss and harm resulting from the reduction of their pensions by those unlawful decisions.

      (1)  Council Decision 2010/320/EU of 8 June 2010 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2010 L 145, p. 6).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/486/EU of 7 September 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2010 L 241, p. 12).

      (3)  Council Decision 2011/57/EU of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15).

      (4)  Council Decision 2011/257/EU of 7 March 2011 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening the fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2011 L 110, p. 26).

      (5)  Council Decision 2011/734/EU of 12 July 2011 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 38).

      (6)  Council Decision 2011/791/EU of 8 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/734/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2011 L 320, p. 28).

      (7)  Council Decision 2012/211/EU of 13 March 2012 amending Decision 2011/734/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2012 L 113, p. 8).

      (8)  Council Decision 2013/6/EU of 4 December 2012 amending Decision 2011/734/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2013 L 4, p. 40).


title: Case T-320/17: Action brought on 25 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/31

         Action brought on 25 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF
   (Case T-320/17)
   (2017/C 256/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Fund (EIF)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s award decision disclosed to the applicants on 16 March 2017 regarding the tender filed by the applicants in response to the open procurement procedure (reference 2016-MIBO_IPA_PPI-002) by which they were informed that their bid had not been ranked as the most economically advantageous tender;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages reaching the amount of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand Euros); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the the defendant infringed the EU law on public procurement, the principles of transparency and the provisions of the directives on public procurement, together with the EIF Practical Guide, by not communicating to the applicants the scores awarded in each award criterion to the winning tender and a detailed analysis of the strong and weak points of their tender in relation to those of the winning tender. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision.


title: Case C-323/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Termoraggi SpA v Comune di Monza and Others

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Termoraggi SpA v Comune di Monza and Others
   (Case C-323/07)
   (2007/C 235/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Termoraggi SpA

      Defendant: Comune di Monza and Others
   Question referred
   Is Article 6 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 to be regarded as applying to the question at issue in the present proceedings, and what interpretation is to be given to that article for the purposes of determining whether the contested measures are compatible with the Community legislation, in the terms stated in the grounds [of the Order]?

      (1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-632/14: Action brought on 25 August 2014  — Intercon v Commission

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/16

         Action brought on 25 August 2014 — Intercon v Commission
   (Case T-632/14)
   2014/C 380/22
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               hold that, by issuing an order for repayment of the amount of EUR 2 58  479,21, the Commission has breached the provisions of Grant Agreement No ARTreat — 224297 under the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           exceeding of the limits of the scope of examination by reason of the audit which was carried out and the consequent impermissible evaluation of the results of that audit.

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium.

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           Failure to take into account new comments and clarifications by reference to Article II.22.5 of the annex to the agreement, even though the Commission had requested the beneficiary to submit these and had imposed a time-limit for that purpose.


title: Case T-471/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/37

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-471/15)
   (2015/C 337/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-601/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/63

      Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
      (Case T-601/11)
      (2012/C 25/121)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Parties

         Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act.

                  —

                  Declare that Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is invalid in so far as it provides that the measure is approved as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: the contested decision is vitiated on grounds of failure to state reasons, as the arguments put forward in support of the plea that the aid in question — which consists in duties on online gaming being lower than duties on gaming through establishments based in Denmark — is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU are unrelated to the criteria laid down in that provision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: the contested decision should be set aside on essential procedural grounds, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to put forward its views on the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: incorrect application of the law in that the Commission’s decision is manifestly incorrect, as there is no power conferred in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU to declare the aid in question compatible with the Treaty and the Commission exceeded its discretion under that provision.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: misuse of powers in that the contested decision is not actually based on the objectives which form the background for the provision in question.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law: the contested decision disregards the principle of proportionality, as it has not been demonstrated that the decision does not go beyond what is necessary.