title: Case C-518/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 September 2013 — The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 26 September 2013 — The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator
   (Case C-518/13)
   2013/C 367/43
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen on the application of Eventech Ltd

      Defendant: The Parking Adjudicator

      Interested parties: London Borough of Camden, Transport for London

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, involve the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the circumstances of the present case?

               2.

                           (a)

                           In determining whether making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, is selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, what is the relevant objective by reference to which the question whether Black Cabs and minicabs are in a comparable legal and factual situation should be assessed?

                           (b)

                           If it can be shown that the relevant objective, for the purposes of question 2(a), is at least in part to create a safe and efficient transport system, and that there are safety and/or efficiency considerations that justify allowing Black Cabs to drive in bus lanes and that do not apply in the same way to minicabs, can it be said that the measure is not selective within the meaning of Article 107 (1) TFEU?

                           (c)

                           In answering question 2(b), is it necessary to consider whether the Member State relying on that justification has demonstrated, in addition, that the favourable treatment of Black Cabs by comparison with minicabs is proportionate and does not go beyond what is necessary?

               3.

               Is making a bus lane on a public road available to Black Cabs but not to minicabs, during the hours of operation of that bus lane, liable to affect trade between Member States for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in circumstances where the road in question is located in central London, and there is no bar to citizens from any Member State owning or driving either Black Cabs or minicabs?


title: Case C-277/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   (Case C-277/05)
   (2005/C 229/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Conseil d'Etat (France), acting in a judicial capacity, of 18 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains and Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie on the following question:
   Must sums paid as deposits in the context of sales contracts in relation to the provision of services which are subject to value added tax be regarded, where the purchaser makes use of the cancellation option available to him and those sums are retained by the vendor, as remuneration for the reservation service and, as such, subject to value added tax, or as cancellation payments made to compensate for the loss suffered as a result of the default of the customer, which have no direct connection with any service provided for consideration and, as such, are not subject to value added tax?


title: Action brought on 4 December 1996 by Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-199/96)

text:
No C 54/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 2 . 97
In support of their claims, the applicants allege breach of               for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne
Article 39 of the EC Treaty read in conjunction with                      Korn , 21 , rue de Nassau .
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 (') on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of                The applicant claims that the Court should :
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and with
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 ( 4 ) on the                      — annul the decision classifying her in grade A7, of
registration of geographical indications and designations                       which she was notified by a note dated 5 January
of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of                        1996 ,
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting her administrative
In this connection , according to the applicants , while                        complaint, of which she was notified by a note dated
Parmigiano Reggiano was included in the list of                                 1 August 1996 , received on 3 September 1996 ,
registrations under Regulation No 2081 /92 ('), no
designation of German cheese was registered under the                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, notice of
name 'Parmesan ', since such a designation must be                              competition COM/T/A/94, inasmuch as it provides
considered to be unlawful if it is used to indicate cheese                      that members of the temporary staff recruited as
produced outside the area of protection supervised by the                       officials are to be classified , subject to certain
Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano . On the                            conditions , in the grade which they occupied at the
other hand, they claim that the derogation provided for by                      time when the list of suitable candidates was drawn
Article 13 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 cannot                       up ,
apply to the German cheeses listed in the contested
decision, because the products covered by the protective                  — order the Commission to pay the costs .
term must have been marketed legally for at least five
years before the date of publication of Regulation ( EEC )                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 2081 /92 . There exists a bilateral agreement between
Italy and Germany as a result of which the fundamental                    The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 6 , contests the
condition that the products referred to in Article 13 ( 2 ) of            decision of the Commission expressly refusing her
Regulation No 2081 /92 must have been lawfully marketed                   appointment to grade A6 .
is not satisfied . On the basis of that agreement, Germany
undertook to recognize and protect various typical                        She pleads infringement of the second sentence of the
designations of traditional Italian products , including                  second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
Parmigiano Reggiano .                                                     claiming that the contested decision contained no
                                                                          statement of the grounds on which is was based . The
The applicants also claim that the Commission failed to                   applicant further considers that the Commission
perform its duties under Article 155 of the EC Treaty. In                 committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to
that connection they consider that not only did the                       regard her professional and academic qualifications as
defendant fail to take steps to prevent a Member State                    exceptional , so as to allow the application of Article 31
from acting in breach of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Regulation                   ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations, and maintains that there has
( EEC ) No 2081 /92 , but it even ratified that breach by                 been a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                          and interests of officials .
recognizing as lawful the designation of a cheese which
was on the contrary prohibited , since such designation is
reserved for a product covered by Community protection .
(')   OJ No  L 230,  11 . 9.   1996 , p. 12 .
(2)   OJ No  L 268 , 14 . 9.   1992 , p. 1.
O     OJ No  L 208 , 24 . 7.   1992 , p. 1.                               Action brought on 4 December 1996 by Laboratoires
(4 )  OJ No  L 148 , 21 . 6.   1996 , p. 1.                               Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T- 199/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/47 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 3 December 1996 by Christine Dalby
     against the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
                             ( Case T-198/96 )                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 December
                                ( 97/C 54/46 )
                                                                          1996 by Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA, the
                                                                          registered office of which is at Rungis ( France ), in the
                  (Language of the case: French)                          person of Jacqueline Cariven, its administrator appointed
                                                                          by judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce ( Commercial
An action against the Commission of the European                          Court ), Creteil , of 5 October 1995 , and Jean-Jacques
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Goupil , residing at Chevreuse ( France ), represented by
Instance of the European Communities on 3 December                        Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
1996 by Christine Dalby, residing in Brussels, represented                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
bv Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address                  31 Grand-Rue .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 54/29
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         very composition of Bergasol as a whole, that is to say,
                                                                    due to the use of 5-MOP in association with sun filters
— order the Commission to pay damages in the sum of                 and appropriate excipients . In the present case, the
     FF 152 867 090 ( one hundred and fifty two million             Commission disregarded the two-tier nature of the system
     eight hundred and sixty seven thousand and ninety              imposed on it by the 'cosmetics' Directive, that is to say,
     French francs ) to Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques                the obligation to consult the Scientific Committee
     Bergadem SA and in the sum of FF 161 309 995,33                beforehand and the fact that its competence is dependent
     ( one hundred and sixty one million three hundred and          on the receipt of a positive opinion from the Adaptation
     nine thousand nine hundred and ninety five francs and          Committee .
     thirty three centimes ) to Mr Jean-Jacques Goupil
     personally,                                                    That conduct on the part of the Commission was the
                                                                    direct and decisive cause of the significant financial
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                       damage suffered by the company and by Mr Goupil
                                                                    personally, consisting of lost profits, research and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 advertising expenses, the fees of experts and advisers and
                                                                    the expense involved in dismissing staff.
The applicants, Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergadem
SA and its chairman and managing director, Jean-Jacques
Goupil , who holds 99,875% of its share capital , have
brought proceedings for damages based on the non
contractual liability of the Community, as provided for in
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Smanor SA,
the second paragraph of Article 215 and Article 178 of              Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud against the
the EC Treaty.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-201 /96 )
Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergadem SA, which was
placed in receivership by court order of 6 July 1995 and                                      ( 97/C 54/48 )
in judicial liquidation in October 1995 , carried on
business in the field of para-pharmaceutical and cosmetic                           (Language of the case: French)
products . One of its three product lines was Bergasol , a
sun protection oil containing, inter alia , natural citrus          An action against the Commission of the European
essences which themselves contain a chemical substance              Communities was brought before the Court of First
named 5-MOP, a type of furocoumarines ( psoralens ).                Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                                                                     1996 by Smanor SA, established at Saint Martin D'Ecublei
On 10 July 1995 , the Commission adopted the 18th                   ( France ), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud , residing at
Directive 95/34/EC adapting to technical progress                   Saint Martin D'Ecublei ( France ), represented by Laurence
Annexes II, III, VI and VII to Council Directive 76/768/            Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar.
EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to cosmetic products, which limits the              The applicants claim that the Court should :
maximum concentration of furocoumarines ( psoralens ) in
                                                                    — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
sun protection products to 1 mg/kg.
                                                                    — rule, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, that the
The applicants consider that, in making the contested                    Commission has incurred non-contractual liability
adaptation, the Commission breached its obligation                       towards both Smanor SA and Mr and Mrs Segaud,
constantly to update its sources of scientific information,              its founders, salaried managers and majority
which necessitates an exchange of scientific arguments                   shareholders, and that it should pay them
and, indeed, a comparative appraisal of scientific opinions              compensation for the damage in the sum of ECU
where these diverge . It contends that the Commission has                4 562 884 ,
disregarded the clear distinction between the substance in
its chemically pure form and the finished product,                  — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Bergasol , because the 'cosmetics' Directive relates to the
finished cosmetic product as a whole, and that it has                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
committed a serious breach of the fundamental principles
of the 'cosmetic ' Directive and of the applicants ' rights          On 14 July 1988 the Court of Justice of the European
arising from it, in particular by the misuse of the legal            Communities delivered a judgment (') in a reference made
remedies provided for by that Directive . In reality, the            to the Court of Justice by the Tribunal de Commerce
Directive concerns only the applicants and the product               ( Commercial Court ), L'Aigle, for a preliminary ruling on
 Bergasol; the Commission has used the Directive as a                the interpretation of Articles 30 to 36 of the EEC Treaty
vehicle since it has mandatory legislative effect and cannot         and Articles 5 , 15 and 16 of Council Directive 79/ 112 of
 be challenged directly by individuals .                             18 December 1978 . The question referred in that case had
                                                                     been raised in proceedings for reconstruction under
According to the applicants, to limit the concentration of           judicial supervision brought against Smanor SA before the
 5-MOP in sun protection products to 1 mg/kg constitutes             national court in L'Aigle .
a disproportionate measure which is not appropriate for
 the objective which that limitation seeks to achieve, since         In consequence of that judgment, the applicants requested
 the protection of human health can be ensured by the                the Commission on several occasions to intervene in


title: Case C-2/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others, Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more than 2100 metres in length)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others, Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd
   (Case C-2/07) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length)
   (2008/C 107/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others., Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto

      Defendants: Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Notion of ‘project liable to have significant effects on the environment’ — Airport with a runway of more than 2 100 metres in length — Work on infrastructures and work to restructure an existing airport without extension of the runway — Requirement for an impact assessment
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337. It is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a principal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact on the environment must be assessed globally.

               2)

               Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version, also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic. It is for the national court to establish that the competent authorities correctly assessed whether the works at issue in the main proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assessment.

               3)

               The competent authorities have to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environmental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a view to accommodating that increase in activity.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-346/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Dalarnas län): Braathens Sverige AB, formerly Transwede Airways AB v Riksskatteverket (Directive 92/81/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils supplied for use as aviation fuel for purposes other than private pleasure flying - Exemption from the harmonised duty)

text:
7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/3
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 — the sum of ITL 246 000 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 December 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
3. Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
     known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
     Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 March 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                     — the sum of ITL 110 800 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 June 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 August 1988 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 158 400 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 November 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                         (Third Chamber)                                   3. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the costs.
                          of 10 June 1999                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
in Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communi-
          ties v Comune di Montorio al Vomano(1)
(Article 238 EC (ex Article 181) — Arbitration clause —                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               Non-performance of two contracts)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 226/04)
                                                                                of 10 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-346/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        the Länsrätten i Dalarnas län): Braathens Sverige AB,
                                                                             formerly Transwede Airways AB v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils supplied for use
                                                                           as aviation fuel for purposes other than private pleasure
                                                                                flying — Exemption from the harmonised duty)
In Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Paolo Stancanelli assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro) v                                            (1999/C 226/05)
Comune di Montorio al Vomano acting through its legal
representative for the time being, represented by Paolo Scar-
pantoni, of the Teramo Bar — application under Article 238                                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
EC (ex Article 181) for an order requiring the defendant. first,
to reimburse advance payments made by the Commission to
the defendant in connection with two contracts for the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
completion of a demonstration project relating to the exploi-                                  in the European Court Reports)
tation of alternative energy sources and, second, to pay the
Commission damages by way of compensation for the damage
suffered — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                         In Case C-346/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de               EC (ex Article 177 of the EC Treaty) by the Länsrätten i
Almeida and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Dalarnas län for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                pending before that court between Braathens Sverige AB,
on 10 June 1999, in which it:                                              formerly Transwede Airways AB and Riksskatteverket — on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
1. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay to the Com-                  structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
     mission, under Contracts Nos WE 147/85 and HY 149/85:                 p. 12) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              7.8.1999
(President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of                Euratom) No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (OJ 1982 L 265,
the Fifth Chamber) J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                   p. 1), in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII thereto — the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet Judges, N. Fen-                   Court (First Chamber) composed of: P. Jann President of the
nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999 in which it                 D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
has ruled:                                                                  pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            10 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
     1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on        1. Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council
     mineral oils precludes the collection of a tax of the kind at issue        of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of
     in this case, which is levied on domestic commercial aviation and          Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
     is calculated by reference to data on fuel consumption and                 of the European Communities and instituting special measures
     emissions of hydrocarbons and nitric oxide during an average               temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended
     flight by the type of aircraft used.                                       by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of
                                                                                27 September 1985, in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII
2. The obligation imposed by Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 to              thereto, does not preclude the application, in proceedings between
     exempt from the harmonised excise duty mineral oils supplied for           two former spouses, of national rules of law of the kind contained
     use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private           in Paragraph 1587 et seq. of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch,
     pleasure flying may be relied on by individuals in proceedings             providing for the apportionment of pension rights between
     before national courts in order to contest national rules that are         divorced spouses.
     incompatible with that obligation.
                                                                            2. Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
                                                                                EC) does not preclude the laws of a Member State regulating the
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                     consequences of divorce between an official of the Communities
                                                                                and his former spouse, regard being had to the spouses’
                                                                                nationality as a connecting factor, from causing the official
                                                                                concerned to bear a heavier burden than would be borne by an
                                                                                official of a different nationality in the same situation.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                            of 10 June 1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-430/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Amtsgericht Köln): Jutta Johannes v Hartmut                                                    of 15 June 1999
                              Johannes (1)
                                                                            in Case C-140/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Officials — Pension rights — Apportionment of pension                      the Landesgericht Linz): Walter Rechberger and Renate
                    rights in divorce proceedings)                          Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and Others v Republic of
                                                                                Austria (1)
                            (1999/C 226/06)                                 (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays
                                                                            and package tours — Travel offered at a reduced price to the
                                                                            subscribers of a daily newspaper — Transposition of the
                     (Language of the case: German)                                    directive — Liability of the Member State)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-430/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC (ex Article 177) by the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
court between Jutta Johannes and Hartmut Johannes on the                                         in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC) and of Regulation (EEC, Euratom,                  In Case C-140/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht
down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of               Linz (Regional Court, Linz) for a preliminary ruling in the
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities                    proceedings pending before that court between Walter
and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to                  Rechberger and Renate Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and
officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968               Others and the Republic of Austria — on the interpretation of
(I), p. 30), as amended by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC,                   Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990


title: Case C-141/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 — Allocation of catch quotas among Member States — Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain — End of the transitional period — Requirement of relative stability — Principle of non-discrimination — New fishing opportunities — Admissibility)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-141/05) (1)

   (Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 - Allocation of catch quotas among Member States - Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain - End of the transitional period - Requirement of relative stability - Principle of non-discrimination - New fishing opportunities - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 315/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa and M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and A. De Gregorio Merino, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and T. van Rijn, Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2005 L 12, p. 1), in so far as the new fishing opportunities in the North Sea and Baltic Sea were not allocated having regard to Spain's interests, in spite of the transitional arrangements — Discrimination — Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-335/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 4/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.1.2001
Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-                       Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex Textil
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH against the Commission
                                ties                                                        of the European Communities
                        (Case T-335/00)                                                             (Case T-337/00)
                          (2001/C 4/12)                                                              (2001/C 4/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex
European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Anthony                       Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH, Essen (Germany),
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,             represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.
Merriman White, London (UK).
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision REM 32/99 of 29 June 2000;
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of
      EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;                                    —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
      until the actual payment;
                                                                         The action concerns a decision by the Commission of 29 June
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.             2000, refusing an application by the Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany for leave to waive payment by the applicant of
                                                                         import duties of DEM 1 213 442 in respect of the importation
                                                                         of textile goods from Bangladesh. Post-clearance recovery of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the duties was demanded of the applicant on account of
                                                                         the revocation of preference certificates of the competent
                                                                         authorities in Bangladesh.
The applicant in the present case has studied law and in 1999
completed the Bar Vocational Course, a prerequisite for the
admission to the Bar of England and Wales and the practice of            The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
law as a barrister.                                                      to a fair hearing, as at the time of the inspection of the files the
                                                                         applicant was not presented with all the relevant supporting
                                                                         documents. Nor could the applicant be accused of any obvious
He has lodged under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17, a             negligence for the purposes of Article 239 of the Community
complaint relating to the requirement in certain circumstances           Customs Code. It had concluded normal commercial trans-
that a barrister should supply legal services only if briefed or         actions with producers and exporters in Bangladesh, whereby
instructed by a professional client. This rule should constitute         it was not apparent that some of the goods did not originate
restriction of competition contrary to Article 85 (now                   in Bangladesh. The applicant had thus acted in good faith on
Article 81) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as consumers of legal             importation.
services are denied access to the market in legal services.
                                                                         Furthermore, the Commission failed to take account of
The applicant submits that, from a general point of view, the            maladministration by the Bangladeshi authorities in the issue
defendant incurred non-contractual liability by committing a             of certificates of origin and monitoring of the origin require-
misuse of power by refusing to adopt forthwith all measures              ments. Even the Commission itself had acted improperly, in
necessary to prevent the misrepresentation of the legal status           that, inter alia, it did not sufficiently supervise compliance with
of lawyers known as barristers by the Bar Council, in order to           the rules on origin and failed to issue a timely warning to
seal off the market for the supply of legal services to Lawyers          importers.
entitled to practice as barristers by concealing the Community
nature and effects of the professional qualification and the
                                                                         The applicant further submits that the principles of the
professional title required to be awarded by a Law school in
                                                                         protection of persons acting in good faith, equal treatment,
the United Kingdom on completion of the theoretical and
                                                                         proportionality and equity in individual circumstances call for
practical training for access to the profession of barrister.
                                                                         remission of the duties demanded post-clearance.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Brigitte Nau against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-94/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 166/25
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Patrick Salez against                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-92/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 166/51 )
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                   (Language of the case: French)                       Case T-16/97 0 ).
An action against the Commission of the European                        (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Patrick Salez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Brigitte Nau against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       ( Case T-94/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/53
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                      (Language of the case: French)
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      by Brigitte Nau, residing at Strombeek-Bever ( Belgium),
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of Article 31
C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                         (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Minh-Hong Pham
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                           ( Case T-93/97)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 166/52 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                        Case T-16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Minh-Hong Pham, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Marie Louise Brichard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95/97)
— annul the Commission's decision of 27 June 1996                                                   ( 97/C 166/54 )
     rejecting      the   applicant's    request  that   it   give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31                             (Language of the case: French)
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     by Marie Louise Brichard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Case T-579/13: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015  — Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of security guard and reception services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — 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 81/20

         Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015 — Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe v Commission
   (Case T-579/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and damages - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of security guard and reception services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 081/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, Agents)

      Re:

   Action, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (2013/S 101-172120) and awarding lot No 1 concerning the provision of security guard and reception services to another tenderer, as well as any prior, associated or subsequent act, including the contract concluded with the successful tenderer, and, second, for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the award of the contract to the successful tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Removal from the register of C-190/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-56/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/67)
   By order of 23 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-56/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003


title: Case T-188/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission (Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning consultancy, audit and study services for OHIM — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Implied Commission decision to dismiss — New claims — Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/16

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission
   (Case T-188/08) (1)

   (Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning consultancy, audit and study services for OHIM - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Implied Commission decision to dismiss - New claims - Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 233/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: infeurope (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts following the call for tenders procedure AO/026/06 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for the provision of consultancy services, audits and studies, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 13 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, APPLICATION for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               infeurope is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-468/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014  — Tisza Erőmű v Commission (State aid — Aid awarded by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators — Power purchase agreements concluded between a public undertaking and certain electricity generators — Decision declaring the State aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Selective nature — State resources — Imputability to the State — Effect on trade between Member States — Rights of the defence — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Tisza Erőmű v Commission
   (Case T-468/08) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid awarded by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators - Power purchase agreements concluded between a public undertaking and certain electricity generators - Decision declaring the State aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Selective nature - State resources - Imputability to the State - Effect on trade between Member States - Rights of the defence - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty))
   2014/C 194/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tisza Erőmű kft, formerly AES-Tisza Erőmű kft (Tiszaújváros, Hungary) (represented initially by T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Tisza Erőmű kft to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-526/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/31

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-526/08)
   (2009/C 44/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with Articles 4 and 5, in conjunction with Annex II A(1) and Annex III 1(1), Annex II A(5) and Annex III 1(2), and Annex II A(2) and Annex II A(6), of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission raises four complaints in support of its action.
   By its first complaint, the Commission criticises the defendant for not complying with the procedures and periods for land application, as laid down in the directive. Although the prohibition on land application during certain periods should cover both organic and artificial fertilisers, the Luxembourg legislation refers solely to organic fertilisers. In addition, the prohibition on the land application of fertilisers during certain periods should relate to all agricultural land, including prairies, which are omitted from the national implementing measures. The Commission also claims that the national legislation should define, with greater precision, those circumstances which may give rise to a derogation from the land application prohibition, as this was not envisaged in the directive.
   By its second complaint, the Commission claims that the national legislation does not lay down any requirement for a minimum manure storage capacity for all installations, but refers only to new installations or those being modernised. Such an implementing measure does not comply with the Directive in so far as the existing installations also present pollution risks. The national legislation should, therefore, impose a minimum storage capacity for all installations.
   By its third complainant, the Commission claims that, in the context of the prohibition of land application on steeply sloping ground, the national legislation should include all fertilisers, and not only organic fertilisers.
   By its fourth and final complaint, it is alleged that the defendant did not adopt sufficient measures concerning land application techniques, in particular, to ensure a uniform and efficient application of fertilisers.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case T-297/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/28

         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Buzzi Unicem v Commission
   (Case T-297/11)
   2011/C 226/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Buzzi Unicem (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Contested Decision in its entirety for failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons, and the consequent breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the principle of due process;

               —

               annul the Contested Decision in its entirety for excess and abuse of powers and for the consequent reversal of the burden of proof;

               —

               annul the Contested Decision, in whole or in part, as being ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 18 [of Regulation No 1/2003]; and for breach of the principles of proportionality and due process, and failure to hear argument on an inter partes basis, in breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’;

               —

               in any event, 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, alleging failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons; breach of the rights of the defence; and breach of the principle of due process

                           —

                           the applicant objects that the Contested Decision fails to fulfil the Commission’s duty to state reasons and entails breach of the applicant’s rights of defence in that it does not provide, or provides in a manner that is wholly inadequate, information regarding the subject and purpose of the investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging excess and abuse of powers, and reversal of the burden of proof

                           —

                           the applicant claims that the Commission exceeded and abused its powers in that the request for information should be used to verify evidence already in its possession, not for compiling — in the absence of evidence — a comprehensive database on the market. That also amounts to a breach of the presumption of innocence and entails a complete reversal of the burden of proof.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred upon it under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003

                           —

                           the applicant argues that the pattern of requests from the Commission is in excess of the powers conferred under Article 18, in accordance with which the Commission may request only information which is necessary as relating to the facts of which the undertaking can be aware and communicating to it the relevant documents in its possession.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and that the Commission acted ultra vires in relation to Article 18

                           —

                           the applicant claims that the Contested Decision exceeds the limits laid down in Article 18 concerning necessity and breaches the principle of proportionality in that (i) it requests information which is unnecessary; (ii) it did not choose, from among a number of suitable measures, the course of action which would entail the least inconvenience for the undertaking; and (iii) the requests are excessively burdensome for the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ and the principle of sound administration

                           —

                           the applicant claims that the Commission acted in breach of its own ‘Best Practices’ in that it first asked the applicant to comment on the draft Contested Decision but did not then take any account of those comments; also in that the Contested Decision differs significantly from the draft. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the constant amendments to the requests constitute clear evidence of the lack of diligence which characterised the Commission’s conduct, in breach of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-427/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Access to justice — Directive 2003/35/EC)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-427/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Access to justice - Directive 2003/35/EC)
   2009/C 220/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, M. Collins SC, and D. McGrath BL)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that

                           —

                           by failing to adopt, in conformity with Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment in the road construction category, covered by point 10(e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) to (7) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, and by failing to adequately notify such provisions to the Commission of the European Communities,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, and Article 6 of Directive 2003/35;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-525/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for Community action in the field of water policy — Recovery of the costs for water services — Concept of ‘water services’ )

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-525/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Recovery of the costs for water services - Concept of ‘water services’))
   2014/C 409/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Wolff and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Facenna, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-462/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
   (Case C-462/13)
   2014/C 78/03
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

      Defendant: Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
   The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.


title: Case T-45/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreements relating to the FIRST, FutureNEM and sISI projects — Actions for annulment and compensation — Reclassification of the actions — Admissibility — Suspension of payments — Deadline for providing the audit report — Dissemination of information to third parties)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission
   (Case T-45/13) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements relating to the FIRST, FutureNEM and sISI projects - Actions for annulment and compensation - Reclassification of the actions - Admissibility - Suspension of payments - Deadline for providing the audit report - Dissemination of information to third parties))
   (2015/C 127/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Rose Vision, SL (Seseña, Spain); and Julián Seseña (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñiz Bernuy and A. Alonso Villa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and X. M. García García, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter by which it suspended the payments under grant agreement No 246910, relating to the FutureNEM project, and of financial audit report 11-INFS-025, on the basis of which it adopted that measure, and, secondly, action for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the Commission’s conduct, up to a maximum of EUR 5 8 54  264, without prejudice to the damages which may be assessed in the course of the present proceedings as well as interest accrued.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rose Vision, SL and Mr Julián Seseña to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case C-390/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud lodged on 22 July 2011 — CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o. v Ministerstvo zemědělství

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud lodged on 22 July 2011 — CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o. v Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-390/11)
   2011/C 311/28
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o.

      Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 4a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, as inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 (1), does the commitment to cease delivery of a certain amount of quota beet to the undertaking with which he has concluded a delivery contract in the preceding marketing year mean a unilateral declaration of the grower that he will not deliver sugar beet in the marketing year 2008/2009, or does that commitment mean the written termination of the contractual relationship of the grower with the sugar company concerning deliveries of sugar beet for the said marketing year?

               2.

               May the fact that a contractual party uses a step provided for by a directly binding EU legal provision result in the unenforceability of an obligation of that contractual party under a valid private law contract, on condition that, as a result of that fact, the other contractual party is granted funds from the public budget?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 58, p. 42.


title: Case C-348/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 87/102/EEC — Article 1(2)(a) — Consumer credit — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 2(b), 3 to 5 and 6(1) — Unfair terms — Examination by the national court of its own motion — Terms drafted ‘in plain, intelligible language’ — Information which the creditor must provide)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA
   (Case C-348/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 87/102/EEC - Article 1(2)(a) - Consumer credit - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 2(b), 3 to 5 and 6(1) - Unfair terms - Examination by the national court of its own motion - Terms drafted ‘in plain, intelligible language’ - Information which the creditor must provide))
   (2015/C 294/19)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Câmpulung

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Bucura

      Defendant: SC Bancpost SA

      Intervener: Vasile Ciobanu

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who becomes a co-debtor under a contract concluded with a seller or supplier comes within the concept of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of those provisions, since that person is acting for purposes which can be regarded as outside his trade or profession.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to examine of its own motion the unfair nature, within the meaning of that provision, of the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, since that court has before it the factual and legal elements necessary for that purpose.

               3.

               Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in its assessment of the unfair nature, within the meaning of Article 3(1) and (3) of that directive, of the terms of a consumer credit contract, the national court must take account of all matters surrounding the conclusion of that contract. In that regard, it is for that court to ensure that, in the case at issue, all information which may affect the scale of the consumer’s obligations has been communicated to him, enabling him to assess, in particular, the total cost of his loan. Decisive factors in that assessment are, first, the issue as to whether the terms are drafted in plain, intelligible language in such a way as to allow an average consumer, that is to say, a consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to assess such a cost and, second, the circumstance linked to the lack of mention in the consumer credit contract of information which, in view of the nature of the goods or services which constitute the subject-matter of that contract, is regarded as being essential, in particular that referred to in Article 4 of Directive 87/102, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-687/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014  — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/55

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)
   (Case T-687/14)
   2014/C 409/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2014 in Case R 2098/2013-4 with the consequence that OHIM will have to reject the opposition in its entirety due to lack of similarity between the goods and/or signs or due to lack of a likelihood of confusion and allow Community trade mark application No 009752271 ‘African SIMBA’ to proceed to registration in accordance with the application;

               —

               Order OHIM and, in the case of a written intervention, the opposing party, to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘African SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 7 52  271

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative mark including the word element ‘SIMBA’ and the international registration of the word mark ‘SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-5/14: Action brought on 17 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/27

         Action brought on 17 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-5/14)
   2014/C 85/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision to remove the applicant from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reduction of his pension rights following an internal investigation begun following an investigation by OLAF opened against an undertaking, and the claim for damages and interest for the non-financial and financial harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted on 16 October 2013, notified at the applicant’s residence on 18 October thereafter by the Commission Security Service, taken by the tripartite AA in Case CMS 12/042, under which ‘Mr ZZ is removed from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reduction of his pension rights’ and taking ‘effect in the month following the date of his signature’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 33 000, by way of compensation for non-material, medical, family, professional and material damage and the adverse effect on the applicant’s career, provisionally set at EUR 1 on an assessed amount, subject to increase or decrease during the proceedings;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.


title: Case C-175/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 April 2011 — HID, BA v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 April 2011 — HID, BA v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-175/11)
   2011/C 204/26
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: HID, BA

      Defendants: Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Member State precluded by the provisions of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1st December, 2005 (1), or by general principles of European Union Law from adopting administrative measures which require that a class of asylum applications defined on the basis of the nationality or country of origin of the asylum applicant be examined and determined according to an accelerated or prioritised procedure?

               2.

               Is Article 39 of the above Council Directive when read in conjunction with its Recital (27) and Article 267 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that the effective remedy thereby required is provided for in national law when the function of review or appeal in respect of the first instance determination of applications is assigned by law to an appeal to the Tribunal established under Act of Parliament with competence to give binding decisions in favour of the asylum applicant on all matters of law and fact relevant to the application notwithstanding the existence of administrative or organisational arrangements which involve some or all of the following:

                           —

                           The retention by a government Minister of residual discretion to override a negative decision on an application;

                           —

                           The existence of organisational or administrative links between the bodies responsible for first instance determination and the determination of appeals;

                           —

                           The fact that the decision making members of the Tribunal are appointed by the Minister and serve on a part-time basis for a period of three years and are remunerated on a case by case basis;

                           —

                           The retention by the Minister of powers to give directions of the kind specified in ss. 12, 16(2B)(b) and 16(11) of the above Act?

      (1)  OJ L 326, p. 13


title: Case C-406/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/39

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-406/13)
   2013/C 260/69
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4), Article 4(2), Article 8, Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 13(1) and (5), Article 14(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1), Article 25(5), Article 36(9)(3), Article 41(1)(d), (g) and (q), (3)(b) and (d), (6)(a) and (c), and (10) to (12), Article 42(1), Article 43(1), (4) and (8) and point 1 in Annex I to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;

               —

               order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/73/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Case T-405/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Markets for everyday consumer goods — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market — Commitments — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/61

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission
   (Case T-405/08) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Markets for everyday consumer goods - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons)
   2013/C 225/135
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented initially by A.-H. Bischke, S. Brack and D. Bräunlich, then by A.-H. Bischke and D. Bräunlich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and O. Weber, then by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, agents, and by M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann, G. Drauz and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 23 June 2008 declaring the merger whereby Billa AG acquired sole control of Adeg österreich Handels AG compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG), subject to the proposed commitments being met, pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.