title: Case T-199/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014  — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/36

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission
   (Case T-199/14)
   2014/C 159/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vanbreda Risk & Benefits (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 January 2014 (Ref. Ares(2014)221245) by which the Commission decided not to accept the bid of VANBREDA RISK & BENEFITS SA for lot 1 of contract 2013/S 155-269617 (call for tenders No OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591) and to award it to the company Marsh SA;

               —

               Order production of the documents referred to in Chapter III (measures of organisation of procedure) of the present application;

               —

               Find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability and order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 1 000 000 as compensation in respect of loss of an opportunity to win the contract, for the loss of references and for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging that the award of the contract by the Commission to a company that did not, in disregard of the tender specifications, enclose with its bid an Agreement/Assignment by which all of the insurers included in the consortium undertook to execute the contract jointly and severally.
   This plea in law is divided into three parts alleging that the Commission:

               —

               Infringed the principle of equality of tenderers, Articles 111(5) and 113(1) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Articles 146(1) and (2), 149(1), and 158(1) and (3) of the implementing regulation (2) and the provisions of the tender specifications by declaring the bid of Marsh to be compliant even though it did not include the Agreement/Assignment duly signed by all the insurers included in the consortium in accordance with the provisions of the specifications;

               —

               Infringed the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and Articles 112(1) of the Financial Regulation and Article 160 of the implementing regulation by allowing Marsh to modify its bid after the final date for the submission of tenders;

               —

               Infringed the principle of transparency, read in conjunction with Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation, by refusing to give a definitive answer to the question submitted by the applicant in order to find out whether the Agreement/Assignment had been signed by all the insurers participating in the Marsh consortium and whether that document had been enclosed with the Marsh bid.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 November 1998 in Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 48/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
2. Declares that that sum will bear interest at an annual               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    rate of 8 % with effect from the date of this judgment                              of 30 November 1998
    and until due payment.
                                                                   in Case T-97/94: N v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Orders the Parliament to pay its own costs and the              (Former officials Ð Staff report Ð Legal interest in
    costs of the applicant.                                                   bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/52)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-97/94: N, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission
                    of 15 December 1998                            of the European Communities (Agent: Lucio Gussetti) Ð
in Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen v. Commission of              application, first, for annulment of the applicant's staff
                the European Communities (1)                       report, prepared by the Commission, for the period from
                                                                   1 July 1989 to 30 June 1991 and, second, for
(Officials Ð Transfer of pension rights Ð Article 11(2) of         compensation for the material and non-material damage
            Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)                   allegedly suffered as a result of that report Ð the Court of
                                                                   First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,
                        (1999/C 48/51)                             President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
                                                                   Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 November 1998, the
                                                                   operative part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2          (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 providing that
the time-limit for transferring pension rights is to be
calculated separately for each transfer and refusing the
applicant's request for aggregation of transfers from the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Andels-Pensionsforening       and   the    Juristernes    og                            of 25 November 1998
ékonomernes Pensionskasse Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,            in Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser v. Commission of the
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                                  European Communities (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 1998, in
                                                                   (Officials Ð Time-limits for bringing proceedings Ð
which it:
                                                                                Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/53)
1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996
    providing that the time-limit for transferring pension                        (Language of the case: French)
    rights is to be calculated separately for each transfer
    and refusing the applicant's request for aggregation of
    transfers from the Andels-Pensionsforening and the             In Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser, an official of the
    Juristernes og ékonomernes Pensionskasse.                      Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Asselscheuer (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
                                                                   by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                         service in Luxembourg at 44 Rue du Grunewald,
                                                                   Asselscheuer,     v.    Commission      of   the   European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                          application for annulment of the refusal of the applicant's
                                                                   request to be re-assigned to the post held by him prior to
                                                                   the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings brought
                                                                   against him Ð the Court of First Instance (First
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/25
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and J.                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                                of 15 December 1998
an order on 25 November 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                in   Case   T-25/98:     Henri de Compte      v. European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                    (Officials Ð Action for annulment and compensation Ð
                                                                    Decision of the Parliament giving discharge in respect of
                                                                    the implementation of the budget for the financial year
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                         1995 Ð Prior administrative procedure Ð Decision
                                                                    rejecting a complaint Ð Identification of the
(1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.                                           subject-matter and legal basis Ð Partial inadmissibility Ð
                                                                    Res judicata Ð Action manifestly and wholly unfounded
                                                                                in law)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/55)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          (Language of the case: French)
                    of 11 December 1998
in Case T-22/98: Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd v.                 In Case T-25/98: Henri de Compte, a former official of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   the European Parliament, residing at Longeville-leÁs-Metz,
(Common agricultural policy Ð Raspberries intended for              represented by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with
processing Ð Flat-rate grant to producers' organisations            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð Recovery of sums paid Ð Act against which no action               Guy Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
lies Ð Legal effects Ð Application for annulment Ð                  Parliament (Agents: Evelyn Waldherr and Anders
                        Inadmissibility)                            Neergaard) Ð application, first, for annulment of
                                                                    Decision No A4-0125/97 of the European Parliament of
                        (1999/C 48/54)                              10 April 1997 giving discharge in respect of the
                                                                    implementation of the budget for the financial year 1995
                                                                    Ð Section I Ð European Parliament/Ombudsman annex
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    (OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 148) and of the Parliament's
                                                                    decision, notified on 19 November 1997, rejecting a
In Case T-22/98: Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd,                   complaint lodged by the applicant and, second, for
established at Blairgowrie, Scotland (Great Britain),               compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant by
represented by Fergus Randolph, Barrister, of the Bar of            reason of the publication of the said discharge decision
England and Wales, with an address for service in                   and as a result of a wrongful accusation concerning a loss
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                 of cash Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the European                composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) Ð application for                 and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
annulment of the decision of the Commission, expressed              order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of which
in its letter of 16 October 1997 to the Scottish Office,            is as follows:
refusing to accede to a request concerning the
interpretation and application of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1991/92 of 13 July 1992 establishing a special             1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible, save as
scheme for raspberries intended for processing (OJ L 199,               regards the claims concerning annulment of the
18.7.1992, p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EEC)                    accounting documents relating to the sum of BEF
No 2252/92 of 30 July 1992 laying down detailed rules                   4 136 125 and the Parliament's refusal to make
for applying that scheme (OJ L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 19) Ð                  available to the applicant all the accounting
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,                    documents explaining the reasons for which he was
President, M. R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;                not issued with a final discharge.
H. Jung, Advocate-General, has given a judgment on
11 December 1998, in which it:
                                                                    2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                        manifestly and wholly unfounded in law.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs and those                  3. The parties are to bear their own costs.
    incurred by the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.


title: Case C-106/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/21

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-106/06)
   (2006/C 86/42)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to submit a national report on the promotion of biofuels, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport; (1)

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has yet to send to the Commission its first report on the promotion of biofuels, which was to be submitted before the 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.


14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case T-287/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Export refunds — No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State — Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies — Proportionality)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-287/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 293/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, then M. Jacobs, L. Van den Broeck and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-55/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2015 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag-Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Lembergerland — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine containing geographical indications — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2015 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag-Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)
   (Case T-55/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Lembergerland - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine containing geographical indications - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/65)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag-Mühlhausen eG (Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany) (represented by: H. Steffan, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (Case R 566/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Lembergerland as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag-Mühlhausen eG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case T-549/11: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of earlier national trade marks — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/47

         Order of the General Court of 26 November 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)
   (Case T-549/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of earlier national trade marks - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 26/94
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2011 (Case R 115/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Real Seguros, SA and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs incurred before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Kurt Giegerich against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-253/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/25
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Berrisch) and Commission of the European Communities
                    of 18 December 1997                              (Agents: Eric White and Claus-Michael Happe) Ð
                                                                     application for taxation of costs following the judgment of
in Case T-178/94: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas               the Court of 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94: Nölle
  (ATM) v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                v. Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2589 Ð the
(State aid Ð Reduction in social charges Ð Closure of the            Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
file on the complaint Ð Interest in bringing proceedings             Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,
                      Ð Inadmissibility)                             C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                         (98/C 55/51)                                12 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows:
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
In Case T-178/94: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas               applicant to the Council, including the costs incurred by
(ATM), established in Madrid, represented by Juan                    the parties for the purpose of the present proceedings, is
Eugenio Blanco Rodríguez and Bernardo Vicente                        fixed at DEM 20 000.
HernaÂndez Bataller, of the Madrid Bar and by Lydie
Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
                                                                     (1) OJ C 222, 18.8.1993.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ
SeÂreÂbriacoff, 11 rue Goethe, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: during the written
procedure initially by Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Diaz
and Michel Nolin, then by Francisco Santaolalla and
Michel Nolin, and during the oral procedure by Fernando
Castillo de la Torre) Ð application for annulment of the             Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Kurt Giegerich
Commission's decision, communicated to the Asociación                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Telefónica de Mutualistas by the Commission's letter                                       (Case T-253/97)
No D/30508 of 15 February 1994, to close the file on the
complaint lodged by that association objecting to the State                                   (98/C 55/53)
aid allegedly received by a public limited company,
CompanÄía Telefónica de EspanÄa SA Ð the Court of First                             (Language of the case: German)
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.             An action against the Commission of the European
Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. Pirrung, Judges; B.                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given        Instance of the European Communities on 17 September
a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:                         1997 by Kurt Giegerich, residing at Osmate/VA (Italy),
                                                                     represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef Rüber and
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                        Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay             Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
      those of the Commission.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.
                                                                     Ð annul the defendant's decision of 18 October 1996,
                                                                     Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation for the damage suffered by him as a
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               result of his not having been promoted to grade A 3
                                                                         with effect from 25 March 1991, in the form of a sum
                    of 12 December 1997                                  representing the difference between the levels of
in Case T-167/94 (92): Detlef Nölle v. Council of the                    remuneration payable to grade A 4 officials and
European Union and Commission of the European                            grade A 3 officials for the period from April 1991 to
                       Communities (1)                                   date, and declare, as regards the future, that an
                                                                         adjustment should be made to compensate for the
                      (Taxation of costs)
                                                                         corresponding damage arising from the receipt by the
                         (98/C 55/52)                                    applicant of a smaller pension and the possible receipt
                                                                         by his wife of a smaller widow's pension,
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Ð alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the
In Case T-167/94 (92): Detlef Nölle, trading as Eugen                   applicant compensation for the damage suffered by
Nölle', of Remscheid (Germany), represented by Frank                     him as a result of his not having been promoted to
Montag and Hans-Joachim Prieû, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels,                  grade A 3 with effect from 1 November 1995,
against Council of the European Union (Agents: Jorge                     covering his period of active employment and the
Monteiro, Jürgen Huber, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.                    period during which he is in receipt of his pension and
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
     also, as the case may be, the subsequent period during         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
     which his widow receives a widow's pension,                    1997 by Alzetta Mauro, Antonini Maria Luisa, Avon
                                                                    Maria Angela, Avon Pietro, Biasotto Marzio, Bianchin
                                                                    Roberto, Bagatin Venanzio, Bit Leo, Bortolus Giuseppe,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                    Bortolussi Urbano, Brovedani Francesco, Bot Roberto,
                                                                    Carcione Leone, Casagrande Elio, Cicagna Giuseppe,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Cogato Luigi, Corradini Franco, Cozzi Aldo, Dal Pos
                                                                    Marinella, De Re Guido, De Zotti Giovanni, Favalessa
                                                                    Enzo, Furlan Giuseppe, Marchese Michelino, Marson
From March 1991 the applicant, who has been in
                                                                    Graziella, Miorini Pierluigi, Picolo Claudio, Pinna Mario,
retirement since 1 November 1996, was a grade A 4
                                                                    Pivetta Giorgio, Pivetta Luciano Stelvio, Pizzolitto Enrico,
official employed as the Head of the large and important
                                                                    Sferruggia Mariano, represented by Antonia Pili, of the
Management Support Unit of the Joint Research Centre at
                                                                    Pordnone Bar, Anselmo Barone and Giancarlo Pezzano, of
Ispra. He claims that, before being transferred to that
                                                                    the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
post, he was told by his then superior that this must and
                                                                    at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort
would lead to his promotion to grade A 3. However, he
                                                                    Rheinsheim.
was subsequently denied that promotion. The applicant is
now contesting the failure to grant him the promotion
promised to him in 1991, the continuing failure to                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
promote him during the period from 1991 to 1996 and
the fact that he was not promoted in 1996 with
retroactive effect from 1 November 1995. To that end, the           Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
applicant invokes the prohibition of discrimination and/or               30 July 1997,
the principle of equal treatment, together with the duty
incumbent on the defendant to have regard for the
interests and welfare of officials, since the applicant, like       Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
the other heads of units within the administration of the                inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Joint Research Centre, was entitled to be employed in an                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
A 3 post. The applicant bases his claim for compensation                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
on the fact that the manner in which the specific                        was paid,
procedure for the promotion of officials to grade A 3 was
held in 1996 was legally open to challenge. Thus, not only          Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
were the reports concerning the applicant not produced by                Communities to pay the costs.
the due date; in addition, the contemporary reports were
not submitted during the course of the selection
procedure. Had the procedure been correctly followed, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant would have been promoted, with retroactive
effect from 1 November 1995, to an A 3 post becoming
vacant following the retirement of another official. Before         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
himself going into retirement, the applicant would have             relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
worked for a whole year in that position. He therefore              Giulia v. Commission (1).
claims that he is entitled to be placed in the position in
which he would have found himself if the defendant had              (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
fulfilled its obligations in the correct manner. This means
that he is entitled to receive compensation for the material
damage suffered by him, in the form of payment of the
difference between the remuneration of an A 4 official and
an A 3 official, together with a corresponding adjustment
in respect of pension payments.
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1997 by The Bavarian
                                                                    Lager Company Limited against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-309/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/55)
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Mauro Alzetta
and Others against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       (Case T-298/97)
                         (98/C 55/54)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1997 by the Bavarian Lager Company Limited,
                                                                    represented by Stephen Hornsby, with an address for
An action against the Commission of the European                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Marc,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.


title: Case C-255/11: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-255/11) (1)

   2013/C 63/26
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Removal from the register of C-128/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


title: Action brought on 30 December 1997 by E against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-2/98)

text:
C 55/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               relied upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                          deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Ð declare the application admissible and well founded,                    1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
                                                                          from the income earned by her from her activities as a
Ð rule that the defendants are liable for the damage
                                                                          freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
     suffered by the applicant,
Ð consequently, order the defendants jointly and                      Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
     severally to pay a sum provisionally fixed at                        by the applicant during the period from 1 January
     BEF 10 377 559, subject to increase or decrease during               1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, currently
     the course of the proceedings, together with 8 %                     estimated by the applicant as amounting to
     interest from 1 January 1993, the date on which the                  ECU 43 265, together with interest at the rate of 8 %
     damage was effectively suffered, to the date of                      or at the legal rate applicable,
     payment in full,
                                                                      Ð by way of subsidiary relief,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs.                                                               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       642 199, together with such further damage as may be
                                                                          specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
Case T-611/97 (1).                                                        period from 1 January 1989 to 30 September 1995
                                                                          inclusive during which the defendant retained
(1) See page 33 of this Official Journal.                                 Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                      Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 30 December 1997 by E against the
                                                                      The defendant was not entitled to levy Community tax.
         Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-2/98)                               1. By levying Community tax in respect of the applicant,
                           (98/C 55/66)                                   the Commission acted contrary to Community law, in
                                                                          particular Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                            and Immunities and the rules implementing that
                                                                          provision together with Article 28 of the Merger
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Treaty, as well as the principle of legality; in so doing,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          it misused, alternatively exceeded, its powers.
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
1997 by E, residing in Brussels, represented by G. van der            2. For the reasons stated above, the defendant's refusal to
Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the Hoge                    repay to the applicant the Community tax paid by the
Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                                latter since 1989 is unlawful; in addition, it is clearly
Netherlands), The Hague, and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the                   under a duty to repay the sums paid by the applicant
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                which the latter was not liable to pay.
the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                      3. Moreover, the refusal to repay the sums in question is
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          contrary to the principles of the protection of
Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained                 legitimate expectations and of equality.
     in the defendant's letter of 31 October 1997 refusing
     the applicant's request for repayment of the                     In so far as the Court considers that it cannot order the
     Community tax paid by the applicant since 1 January              defendant to repay the Community tax paid by the
     1989,                                                            applicant, the applicant applies for a declaration by the
                                                                      Court that the defendant is liable for the damage suffered
Ð declare void Article 8 of the agreement with the                    by the applicant as a result of the defendant's unlawful
     A.I.I.C., alternatively rule that that Article may not be        conduct (Article 215 of the EC Treaty).


title: Case F-17/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/33

         Action brought on 8 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-17/12)
   2012/C 138/77
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the request of 23 November 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority;

               —

               Annul the note of 24 January 2011, bearing in the top right-hand corner the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011) 74616 — 24.11.2011’, issued by the Commission;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the note of 24 January 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the note of 23 September 2011, bearing in the top right hand corner the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011) 1010393 — 23.09.2011’;

               —

               In so far as necessary, confirm that the procedure instigated following the application for recognition of the applicant’s right, under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him continued for more than five years;

               —

               In so far as necessary, declare that the duration of the procedure in question has exceeded what could be deemed reasonable;

               —

               Accordingly, order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered to date by the applicant on account of the unreasonable duration of the procedure in question by paying to him the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 23 November 2010 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


Important legal notice

|

E1998P0006

Action brought on 2 September 1998 by the Government of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-6/98)

Official Journal C 331 , 29/10/1998 P. 0025 - 0027

Action brought on 2 September 1998 by the Government of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-6/98) (98/C 331/12)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 September 1998 by the Government of Norway, represented by Ingvald Falch, Advocate, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), and Jan-Bugge Mahrt, Assistant Director General, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PO Box 8012 Dep., 0030 Oslo, Norway, acting as agent and co-agent, respectively.The applicant's claims are that:'1. The decision of 2 July 1998 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority concerning the social security taxation scheme in Norway is annulled.2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear the Applicant's costs connected with the action before the EFTA Court`.Factual background- Under the National Insurance Act of 28 February 1997 (Folketrygdloven), all persons working in Norway are subject to a compulsory insurance scheme under which employees and employers pay social security contributions, calculated based on gross salaries. The scheme covers benefits such as pensions, rehabilitation, medical care, wage compensation and unemployment benefits. Contributions to the scheme are collected in the form of a tax on income,- a system of regionally differentiated tax rates for employers was introduced in 1975, dividing the country into five tax zones for the purpose of the scheme:Zone 1: Central municipalities in southern Norway: 14,1 %Zone 2: Rural districts in southern Norway: 10,6%Zone 3: Coastal area mid-Norway: 6,4 %Zone 4: Northern Norway (except zone 5): 5,1 %Zone 5: Spitzbergen/Finnmark/Northern part of Troms: 0 %.- the contribution rate is linked to the municipality in which the employee resides, and not the location of the employer. Thus, an employer may benefit from a lower contribution rate, despite being located in a higher contribution area,- the scheme applies automatically on the basis of objective criteria and is not limited in time. Additionally, it applies without distinction to all sectors of economic activity, all sizes of enterprise, and to the public and private sector, except for the national government which pays the maximum, regardless of where the employee resides. The scheme also applies to non-Norwegian employees residing in Norway, provided they are covered under the Norwegian social security scheme. Foreign employers must also contribute if persons covered by the Norwegian social security scheme are working for them,- in letters dated 16 June and 30 August 1995, the EFTA Surveillance Authority asked the Norwegian Government to submit full details on the existing scheme for social security taxation in Norway, in particular on the system of regionally differentiated social security contributions paid by employers, with a view to examining whether the scheme constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and, if so, whether it might be upheld under Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement,- the Norwegian Government responded in a letter of 19 September 1995,- in the period between the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1997, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Norwegian authorities held a number of informal meetings aimed at elucidating the nature of the Norwegian scheme for social security taxation,- in a letter dated 14 May 1997, the EFTA Surveillance Authority concluded that the scheme of regionally differentiated social security contributions in Norway constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) that could not be upheld under Article 61(3) EEA. In the same letter, the EFTA Surveillance Authority proposed a number of appropriate measures to make the scheme compatible with the Agreement by virtue of Article 61(3) EEA. The Norwegian Government was asked to notify its agreement or disagreement with the proposed measures within two months,- in a letter dated 11 July 1997, the Norwegian Government stated that it did not concur with the position of the EFTA Surveillance Authority maintaining, inter alia that the differentiated social security contributions were part of the general taxation system and thus fell outside the scope of Article 61(1) EEA,- following the reply from the Norwegian Government, the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided on 19 November 1997 to open the formal investigation procedure. The Norwegian Government was informed of the decision and invited to submit its comments. The Commission was also informed,- the Norwegian Government submitted its comments in a letter of 23 January 1998,- the Commission submitted comments in a letter of 5 March 1998,- the Norwegian Government submitted comments to the comments of the Commission by letter of 25 March 1998,- on 2 July 1998, the EFTA Surveillance Authority rendered Decision No 165/98/COL, in which it found that the scheme of regionally differentiated contribution rates for employers was incompatible with the EEA Agreement.Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support- The applicant argues that, unlike the EC Treaty, the EEA Agreement does not contain any provisions for harmonisation of the tax schemes of the Contracting Parties. In the absence of common rules, each State may draw up and implement a tax scheme according to its own policy choices. A social security taxation scheme may fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, but does not automatically do so, and it does not in any event apply to the Norwegian system,- the EFTA Surveillance Authority has applied the criteria of 'general measure` under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement incorrectly to the Norwegian social security taxation scheme. The case law of the European Court of Justice regarding State aid has consistently held that a fundamental and crucial element in the notion of aid is the involvement of some sort of tangible and gratuitous benefit or advantage for someone. Taxation is not usually viewed as conferring a benefit for private parties; on the contrary, it is considered by most to be a burden,- furthermore, taxation schemes often involve distinctions and differential treatment which can vary according to sector, region or other factors. These selective elements, which are present in all modern States, are not only normal but are necessary and inherent elements of any taxation system, as they enable the State in question to pursue policy objectives it has set out for itself. The policy choices of a State do not fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement,- Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not prohibit selective taxation, although it does impose some limits as to what criteria a given form of selective taxation may be based on. A justification test has emerged in the case law of the European Court of Justice, under which the object and general structure of the taxation are examined to determine whether there is objective justification for the scheme in question,- Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement prohibits State aid which distorts competition 'by favouring certain undertakings or certain goods`, which could be interpreted as favouring undertakings or goods in particular areas. However, the European Court of Justice has never ruled that a taxation measure is automatically prohibited under Article 61(1) EEA because it applies only to a particular geographical area. Consequently, the EFTA Surveillance Authority is wrong in stating that the selectivity criterion is fulfilled,- the Commission has also interpreted the State aid rules to mean that a measure will not automatically fall within the scope of the State aid rules simply because it favours certain firms or sectors more than others. The assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis, according to the nature and general scheme of the system,- thus, the fact that the Norwegian scheme creates different effects for different enterprises does not automatically make it fall foul of the State aid rules. One of the main objectives of the Norwegian social security taxation scheme is to create more equal standards of living regardless of place of residence, including promoting employment and settlement in outlying areas. Granting employers lower social security tax rates helps to fulfil that objective. The goals of maintaining settlement patterns, income equalisation and employment equalisation throughout the country must be viewed as a legitimate aim capable of being justified, despite the fact that the effects of the scheme may differ from one undertaking to another,- it must be borne in mind that the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement have retained the power of exercising taxation and labour policy. There can be no doubt that the scheme is an appropriate means of pursuing these policy considerations. Additionally, there are no alternative means which are less restrictive of trade that might be employed to equal effect,- as regards the criterion that the aid is prohibited 'in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties`, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has misinterpreted that it is fulfilled, since in many cases trade between Contracting Parties will not be affected and, even if it is in other cases, the effect on intra-EEA trade will fall below the minimum thresholds. Moreover, the fact that some undertakings may benefit to an extent above the thresholds while others fall below those thresholds does not automatically invalidate the entire scheme,- as regards the criterion 'distorts competition`, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has incorrectly assumed that all undertakings which benefit from the lighter tax burden in certain regions of Norway are in fact exposed to competition. Large segments of the public sector and undertakings operating under legal monopolies are cases in point,- the EFTA Surveillance Authority has exceeded its powers, since it has used Article 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement to declare that the Norwegian Government was under an obligation to notify aid that in fact falls outside the scope of Article 61(1) EEA. The consequences of this decision are quite significant, inter alia, because it would impose on Norway the obligation to notify regional aid, including transport aid, which is unquestionably compatible with the EEA Agreement,- the EFTA Surveillance Authority has also failed to state adequately the reasons for its decision, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. It has not explained why the system is not sufficiently general in nature and has not set out why aid to undertakings sheltered from international competition is incompatible with the EEA Agreement. Thus an essential procedural requirement has been infringed within the meaning of Article 36 of the Surveillance and Court


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 April 1996 in Case T-3/93 (92): Société anonyme à participation ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Taxation of costs)

text:
No C 210/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 7 . 96
Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
milk products sector ( OJ No L 90 , 1984 , p . 13 ) — the                                      of 17 April 1996
President of the First Chamber (Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance made an order on 27 March                  in Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                     ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( J )
1 , the name of J. F. van Rooy is removed from the list of                          (Competition — Taxation of costs)
      applicants in Case T-533/93;                                                               ( 96/C 210/41 )
2 , the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                       In Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
                                                                       ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in
                                                                       Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains, v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
                                                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                         of 17 April 1996                              ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an
in Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of               14 boulevard Roosevelt, and British Airways pic,
                  the European Communities ( 1 )                       established at Hounslow ( United Kingdom ), represented by
               (Competition — Taxation of costs)                       Richard Fowler, QC, of the Bar of England and Wales , and
                                                                       William Allan and James E. Flynn, Solicitors, with an
                            ( 96/C 210/40 )
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Loesch and Wolter, 11 rue Goethe — application for
                  (Language of the case: French)                       taxation of the costs payable by the applicant to the
                                                                       intervener British Airways pic pursuant to the judgment of
In Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 the Court of First Instance of 24 May 1994 in Case T-3/93
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in                Air France v. Commission [ 1994 ] ECR 11-121 — the Court
Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,           of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh,
of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains , v . Commission of the              A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique                      made an order on 17 April 1996 , in which it:
Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                   fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to
 ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an           the intervener British Airways pic at £ 40 000.
address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
 14 boulevard Roosevelt, TAT SA, established at Tours                  (') OJ No C 45 , 17. 2 . 1993 .
 ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler , of the Paris Bar,
and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss , 15
 Côte d'Eich, and British Airways pic, established at
Hounslow (United Kingdom ), represented by William Allan
 and James E. Flynn, Solicitors , with an address for service in                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Goethe — application for taxation of the costs payable by
 the applicant to the intervener British Airways pic pursuant                                  of 22 April 1996
 to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May              in Case T-23 /96 R: Eisa De Persio v. Commission of the
  1994 in Case T-2/93 Air France v . Commission [ 1 994] ECR                                European Communities
 11-323 — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,                                            ( 96/C 210/42 )
 Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,
 B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 April 1 996 , in                              (Language of the case: Italian)
 which it :
                                                                        In Case T-23/96 R: Eisa De Persio, an official of the
 fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 the intervener British Airways pic at £ 29 000.                        Giovanni Petroni and Franco Giampietro, of the Rome Bar,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                        of Gilles Bouneau, 15 avenue du Bois, v . Commission of the
  (>) OJ No C 45 , 17 . 2 . 1993 .                                      European Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                        application, first, for suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                        of the Commission of 22 December 1 995 transferring the


title: Case T-179/05: Action brought on 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/31

         Action brought on 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-179/05)
   (2005/C 155/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l. established in Cagliari, represented by Alberto M. Rossi, lawyer, for annulment of Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group), and particularly Article 1 thereof, which provides that ‘without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, the aid granted by Italy to Adriatica as of 1 January 1992 as compensation for providing a public service is compatible with the common market having regard to Article 86(2) of the Treaty’.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the contested decision, and particularly Article 1 thereof, in so far as it authorises the aid granted to Adriatica (as it then was, now called Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A) in respect of the Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese) route;

               2.

               order repayment of the aid unlawfully received by Adriatica (and, as from 26 July 2004, by Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A.) in respect of the transport services rendered on the Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese) route;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present proceedings have been instituted against the decision of the Commission in respect of the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (1) and particularly Article 1 thereof, which provides that ‘without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, the aid granted by Italy to Adriatica as of 1 January 1992 as compensation for providing a public service is compatible with the common market having regard to Article 86(2) of the Treaty’.
   In support of its claims, the applicant points to the inconsistency between the contested decision and Decision 2001/851/EC of 21 June 2001 on the aid paid by Italy to Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A. In that decision, the defendant took account of the obligation undertaken by the Italian authorities to eliminate the services provided by Tirrenia on the Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese) route, for a further five-year period, with the effect that that route was no longer taken into account in calculating the compensation for providing a public service. It is also stated in that decision that on the route in question the services provided by the private operator satisfy the requirements of public service laid down by the agreements entered into with the State, in terms of their capacity and frequency.
   In the contested decision, by contrast, the Commission:

               —

               adopts no measure against the Italian authorities for failing to comply with the obligation formally undertaken in the presence of the defendant to eliminate the service on the route;

               —

               declares that the Voltri/Termini Imprese route, served by Adriatica in competition with other private undertakings, can be subsidised in that ‘…these operators' supply cannot be regarded as comparable to Adriatica's in terms of regularity, frequency and type of ship stipulated by the Italian authorities in the public service agreement’ (paragraph 103 of the decision).

         In short, the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons and/or inconsistency in the statement of reasons given for the contested decision and an infringement of Regulation No 3577/92 (2).

      (1)  Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (notified under document number C(2004) 470) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7).


title: Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata Manzo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-221/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/37
all trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The applicant sued in the                        the decision not to promote her to grade C 1 for the
Greek courts and succeeded in obtaining a judgment                               year 1996 (published in Administrative Notice No 933
ordering the Central Bank of Iraq to pay it the amount of                        of 9 April 1996 ),
US $ 75 451 500, but execution of that judgment proved
impossible . The damage suffered by the applicant consists
precisely in the fact that it is impossible to enforce its                  — order the Commission to pay the costs.
claim. The applicant transfers the said contractual claim
against the Central Bank of Iraq to the European Union                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and asks it, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, to
pay it compensation of an equal amount.
                                                                            The applicant maintains that it is an established fact,
                                                                            which the Commission does not challenge in the contested
The applicant maintains that all the conditions giving rise                 decision, that she was of greater merit than other officials
to the non-contractual liability of the European Union are                  who were promoted to grade C 1 during the 1996
met. In particular it maintains that when Regulation                        promotions exercise . She argues that, accordingly, by
( EEC ) No 2340/90 (') was adopted the defendant                            refusing her that promotion, the Commission acted
Community bodies infringed the general principles and                       contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and
rules of Community law, specifically the principles of                      infringed Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
protection of property, equal treatment and the
prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of abuse of
powers, proportionality, protection of economic freedom
and protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant considers that there is no need for breach of                 Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye
a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual,                     against Commission of the European Communities
as has been held in the case-law of the Court with regard
                                                                                ( Case T-l/97)
to legislative acts, since Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90
does not constitute a legislative act, but in substance an                                            ( 97/C 54/62 )
act of a direct and individual character.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
O Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
    preventing trade within the Community relating to Iraq and
    Kuwait, ( OJ No L 213 , 9 . 8 . 1990, p. 1 ).                           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1997
                                                                            by Jean-Luc Delhaye, resident in Thieu, Belgium,
                                                                            represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata
Manzo against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        ( Case T-221/96 )
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 25 September
                           ( 97/C 54/61 )
                                                                                1996, notified to the applicant on 1 October 1996,
                                                                                rejecting his complaint of 28 May 1996 ( registered on
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 4 June 1996 ) and refusing to award him the
                                                                                installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of
                                                                                Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           — order the defendant to bear the costs .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1996 by Immacolata Manzo, residing in Brussels,
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                            The applicant states that when he was re-posted to
                                                                            Brussels on his return from the Commission Delegation to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kiev the Commission's administration refused to grant
                                                                            him an installation allowance . He contests that decision
                                                                            and alleges infringement of Article 71 of the Staff
— annul the express decision of 25 September 1996                           Regulations and of Article 5 of Annex VII to those
     rejecting the applicant's complaint, submitted to the                  regulations, as well as infringement of Article 110 of the
     appointing authority on 17 June 1996 , challenging                     Staff Regulations and abuse of power.


title: Case C-129/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-129/13)
   2013/C 171/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Kamino International Logistics BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

                           (b)

                           are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?


title: Case T-79/03: Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Industrie Riunite Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/36                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           Commission was under an obligation to act following the
                                                                           applicant’s observations. Thus the Commission should either
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already            have initiated a procedure against the company against which
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                         the complaint had been made or adopted a definitive decision
                                                                           rejecting the complaint.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                           The applicant further claims that the Commission did not
forward in that case.
                                                                           adopt a position within a reasonable period since, 16 months
                                                                           after the applicant submitted its observations and 9 years after
                                                                           the initial complaint was lodged, the Commission has still not
                                                                           adopted a definitive position.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Industrie Riunite
                           (Case T-78/03)                                  Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                         (2003/C 112/69)
                                                                                (Case T-79/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
whose registered office is in Sorgues (France), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Nicole Coutrelis, lawyer.                                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 27 February 2003 by the above
                                                                           applicant, represented by Prof. A. Giardina, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      declare, pursuant to Article 232 of the Treaty, that the
       Commission has failed to adopt a decision following the
       complaint submitted by the company Haladjian on                     —     annul the contested decision;
       18 October 1993;
                                                                           —     in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    IRO in the decision;
                                                                           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Nearly 10 years ago, the applicant submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning an infringement by Caterpillar of                This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. The applicant states that             been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.
the inquiry into the case was unusually long and that it was
only 8 years later that the Commission sent it a letter advising
of its intention to reject the complaint. The applicant submitted          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
its observations on that letter and waited a year before putting           forward in that case.
the Commission on notice. It points out furthermore that the
Commission had still not adopted a position when the present
action was lodged.


title: Case C-41/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne (Protection of the environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Plan or programme — No prior environmental assessment — Annulment of a plan or programme — Possibility of maintaining the effects of the plan or programme — Conditions)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne
   (Case C-41/11) (1)

   (Protection of the environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Plan or programme - No prior environmental assessment - Annulment of a plan or programme - Possibility of maintaining the effects of the plan or programme - Conditions)
   2012/C 118/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Annulment of a national rule found to be contrary to Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Possibility of maintaining, for a short period, the effects of that rule

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where a national court has before it, on the basis of its national law, an action for annulment of a national measure constituting a ‘plan’ or ‘programme’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment and it finds that the ‘plan’ or ‘programme’ was adopted in breach of the obligation laid down by that directive to carry out a prior environmental assessment, that court is obliged to take all the general or particular measures provided for by its national law in order to remedy the failure to carry out such an assessment, including the possible suspension or annulment of the contested ‘plan’ or ‘programme’. However, in view of the specific circumstances of the main proceedings, the referring court can exceptionally be authorised to make use of its national provision empowering it to maintain certain effects of an annulled national measure in so far as:

               —

               that national measure is a measure which correctly transposes Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

               —

               the adoption and entry into force of the new national measure containing the action programme within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive do not enable the adverse effects on the environment resulting from the annulment of the contested measure to be avoided;

               —

               annulment of the contested measure would result in a legal vacuum in relation to the transposition of Directive 91/676 which would be more harmful to the environment, in the sense that the annulment would result in a lower level of protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and would thereby run specifically counter to the fundamental objective of that directive; and

               —

               the effects of such a measure are exceptionally maintained only for the period of time which is strictly necessary to adopt the measures enabling the irregularity which has been established to be remedied.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.