title: Case F-44/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Maes and Strojwas v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Members of the contract staff — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority or by the AECE, based on new general implementing provisions — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Maes and Strojwas v Commission
   (Case F-44/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority or by the AECE, based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 222/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Olivier Maes (Bangkok, Thailand) and Michal Strojwas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the proposals to transfer the applicants’ pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission on the basis of calculations taking into account the new GIP entering into force after they had submitted their applications for the transfer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Olivier Maes and Michal Strojwas shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23/6/2012, p. 25.


title: Order of the Court of 13 March 2002 in Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Appeal — Officials — Non-renewal of contract as a member of the temporary staff — Rejection of application for post — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of vacancy notices)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period       1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament              2.    The parties to the appeal are to bear their own costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 25.11.2000.
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 May 2002
                          of 13 March 2002                                  in Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre                          (Appeal — Officials — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/23)
(Appeal — Officials — Non-renewal of contract as a
member of the temporary staff — Rejection of application
for post — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                           vacancy notices)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 169/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni, residing at Amandola
                                                                            (Italy), represented by W. Massucci — appeal against the order
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (First Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case T-314/00
                                                                            Cognigni v Commission (not published in the European Court
                                                                            Reports), seeking to have that order set aside, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —
In Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the                    the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium),              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere — appeal against the                A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2002, the operative
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case T-87/                   part of which is as follows:
99 Hendrickx v Cedefop [2000] ECR-SC I-A-147 and II-679,
seeking to have that judgment partially set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being the European Centre for the                  1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), represented
by B. Wägenbaur — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   2.    Mr Cognigni is to pay the costs.
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, C.W.A. Timm-                (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
ermans and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-785/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MOTORTOWN — Earlier international figurative mark M MOTOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN)
   (Case T-785/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MOTORTOWN - Earlier international figurative mark M MOTOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 1960/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-561/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Caner Genc v Udlændingenævnet

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Caner Genc v Udlændingenævnet
   (Case C-561/14)
   (2015/C 065/34)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caner Genc

      Defendant: Udlændingenævnet (Immigration Appeals Board)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, attached to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 between the European Economic Community and Turkey establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, and/or the standstill clause in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970, as confirmed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 (1) of 19 December 1972, be interpreted as meaning that new and more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members who are not economically active, including minor children of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in a Member State, are covered by the standstill requirement having regard to:

                           —

                           the Court of Justice’s interpretation of the standstill clauses in particular in its judgments in Derin, C-325/05, EU:C:2007:442; Dülger, C-451/11, EU:C:2012:504; Ziebell, C-371/08, EU:C:2011:809 (Grand Chamber) and Demirkan, C-221/11, EU:C:2013:583 (Grand Chamber),

                           —

                           the aim and content of the Ankara Agreement, as interpreted in particular in the Ziebell and Demirkan judgments, and having regard to

                                       —

                                       the fact that the Agreement and the protocols and decisions, etc. attached thereto do not contain provisions on family reunification, and

                                       —

                                       the fact that family reunification within the then Community and the present European Union has always been governed by secondary law, at present the Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC)? (2)

               2.

               In answering Question 1, the Court is asked to indicate whether any derived right to family reunification for family members of economically active Turkish nationals who reside and have a residence permit in a Member State applies to family members of Turkish workers under Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, or whether it applies only to family members of Turkish self-employed persons pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1, read in conjunction with Question 2, is in the affirmative, the Court is asked to indicate whether the standstill clause in Article 13(1) of Decision No 1/80 must be interpreted as meaning that new restrictions, which are ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, is suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’ (beyond what is stated in Article 14 of Decision No 1/80) are lawful?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, the Court is asked to indicate:

                           (a)

                           What guidelines should be used to carry out the restriction test and proportionality assessment. The Court is asked inter alia to indicate whether the same principles must be followed as those laid down in its case-law on family reunification in connection with the free movement of EU citizens, which are based on the Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38) and the provisions of the Treaty, or whether another assessment must be applied?

                           (b)

                           If an assessment other than that which stems from the Court’s case-law on family reunification in connection with the freedom of movement of EU citizens must be applied, the Court is asked to indicate whether the proportionality assessment carried out in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights on respect for family life and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights should be adopted as the point of reference and, if not, what principles must be followed?

                           (c)

                           Irrespective of which assessment method is to be applied:
                           Can a rule such as Paragraph 9(13) of the Danish Udlændingeloven (Law on aliens) — under which it is a condition for family reunification between a person who is a third-country national and has a residence permit and is resident in Denmark, and his minor child, where the child and the child’s other parent is resident in the country of origin or another country, that the child has, or has the possibility of establishing, such ties with Denmark that there is a basis for successful integration in Denmark — be regarded as ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, is suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 concluding the additional protocol and the financial protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be taken for their implementation
   (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)
   (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-49/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Spain v Commission

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/19

         Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-49/17)
   (2017/C 095/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: V. Ester Casas, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul in part the Decision of 15 November 2016 (2016/2018/EU) excluding from European Union funding certain expenditure incurred by various Member States, including the Kingdom of Spain, under the EAGF and EAFRD schemes, in so far as:

                           1.

                           As regards the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 1 356 144,90, in respect of the EAGF (Financial year 2012).

                           2.

                           As regards the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 2 191 585, in respect of the EAGF (Financial years 2009 to 2012).

                           3.

                           As regards the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 9 638 473,73, in respect of the EAGF, and EUR 433 138,10, in respect of the EAFRD (Financial years 2012 to 2013).

                           4.

                           The total amount which is the subject of the present application for annulment is EUR 13 619 341,73.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Pleas in law concerning the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Andalusia.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges in this respect infringement of Article 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42), in that the Commission found that the entities ACRES and Unión Rural are not producers.

               2.

               Pleas in law concerning the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The applicant alleges in this respect that:

                           —

                           The single financial correction for errors in the admissibility of expenses in the sum of EUR 122 112,95 (controls concerning the operational programmes: investment in the OP ‘A’) is unlawful since the Commission infringed Articles 105 and 106 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96 (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), in respect of Articles 55(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 52 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), given that the national authorities carried out the controls referred to in the abovementioned articles properly, having respected the requirements of the applicable rules and, in any event, given that there is no risk to the fund.

                           —

                           The flat-rate correction of 5 %, in the sum of EUR 2 191 585 (item: ‘Weaknesses in programme approval and authorisation of expenditure, Autonomous Community of Catalonia’), is unlawful since the Commission infringed Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, in conjunction with Articles 103, 105(2)(d), 106, 107(1)(c) to (e), 108(1)(b) and 109(1)(a) to (c) of Regulation No 1580/2007, in that the Spanish authorities have established compliance with the rules referred to and, in any event, there is no risk to the fund.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality by infringement of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Document VI/5330/97 establishing the Guidelines for the calculation of the financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee.

               3.

               Pleas in law which relate to the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Castile and León. The applicant alleges in this respect that:

                           —

                           The flat-rate correction at 5 % in the sum of EUR 10 071 661,83 and the calculation method used are contrary to Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and the Guidelines in Commission Document VI/5530/97 and AGHRI-2005-64043.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the flat-rate correction imposed by the Commission is disproportionate, infringing Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Document VI/5330/97.


title: Case T-61/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Melt Water v OHIM (NUEVA) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark NUEVA — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Ambiguity in a language version — Uniform interpretation — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Excusable error — Obligations of care and diligence)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Melt Water v OHIM (NUEVA)
   (Case T-61/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark NUEVA - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Ambiguity in a language version - Uniform interpretation - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Excusable error - Obligations of care and diligence))
   2014/C 212/35
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė and J. Stucka, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 1794/2012-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign NUEVA as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-407/16: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

         Order of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)
   (Case T-407/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 161/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1693/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco Popular Español, SA and Pledgeling LLC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Banco Popular Español, SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-385/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/43

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-385/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Wire France (Bourg-en-Bresse, France), ArcelorMittal Fontaine (Fontaine-L’Evêque, Belgium), ArcelorMittal Verderio Srl (Verderio Inferiore, Italy) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and M. Pittie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul the Commission decision in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel in so far as (i) in Article 1 thereof, it finds that AMWF, AM Fontaine and AM Verderio took part in a single and continuous infringement and/or a concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector contrary to Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from 1 January 1984 to 19 September 2002, 20 December 1984 to 19 September 2002 and from 3 April 1995 to 19 September 2002 respectively; (ii) it, consequently, imposes on them, in Article 2 thereof, fines amounting to EUR 276,48 million as regards AMWF, of which EUR 268,8 million is imposed jointly and severally with AM Fontaine and EUR 72 million is imposed jointly and severally with AM Verderio; (iii) it orders them, in Article 3 thereof, to immediately bring the infringement to an end, if they have not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct of the kind described in (i) and any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect and (iv) in Article 4 thereof, it addresses the decision to them.

               —

               In the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, vary the decision by reducing very substantially the amounts of the fines imposed on each of the applicants, as those amounts appear in Article 2, and

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (‘EEA’) (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel) concerning a cartel in the European pre-stressing steel market relating to the fixing of prices, the sharing of the market and the exchange of sensitive commercial information.
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward several pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to an impartial tribunal and an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union inasmuch as the Commission exercises the role of both prosecutor and judge;

               —

               an infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principles of the personal nature of penalties, proportionality and equal treatment inasmuch as the Commission imposed fines on the applicants in an amount manifestly exceeding the legal ceiling of 10 % of their total turnover in the preceding business year;

               —

               an insufficient amount of evidence showing the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA for the period between 1 January 1984 and November 1982 or, at very least, the lack of a statement of reasons;

               —

               the lack of a statement of reasons and an infringement of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2) as well as an infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and sound administration inasmuch as there are gaps in the decision making it impossible to understand the method applied by the Commission to calculate the fines;

               —

               the lack of a statement of reasons and manifest errors of law and fact inasmuch as the fines imposed on AMWF and AM Fontaine were increased by 60 % on the basis that they had previously committed offences;

               —

               an insufficient statement of reasons and an infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 as well as an infringement of the principles of equality and proportionality inasmuch as only the amount of the applicants’ fines was increased by 20 % for dissuasive effect, although other parties to the cartel were in the same situation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003


title: Case T-4/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission (Interim measures — Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Language training services — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer — Application for suspension of operation and interim measures — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable damage — Lack of urgency)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission
   (Case T-4/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Language training services - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable damage - Lack of urgency)
   2013/C 141/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents, and by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of decisions of the Commission rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of several lots in a call for tenders relating to framework contracts for the provision of language training to staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium) and, further, for an order prohibiting the Commission from entering into contracts for the lots at issue with the successful tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-573/12: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Matrix Energetics International v OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/60

         Order of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Matrix Energetics International v OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)
   (Case T-573/12) (1)

   (2015/C 311/65)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-482/11: Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Agrucon and Others v Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/26

         Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Agrucon and Others v Commission
   (Case T-482/11)
   2011/C 319/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) (Madrid, Spain), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA) (Milan, Italy), Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) (Napoli, Italy), Campil-Agro-Industrial do Campo do Tejo, Lda (Cartaxo, Portugal), Evropaïka Trofima AE (Larissa, Greece), FIT — Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA (Águas de Moura, Portugal), Konservopoiïa Oporokipeftikon Filippos AE (Veria, Greece), Panellinia Enosi Konsepvopoion (Athens, Greece), Elliniki Etairia Konservon AE (‘KYKNOS’) (Nafplio, Greece), Anonymos Viomichaniki Etaireia Konservon D. Nomikos (Marousi, Greece), Italagro — Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA (Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal), Kopais Anonymi Viomichaniki Kai Emporiki Etairia Trofimon & Poton (Kopais ABEE) (Maroussi, Greece), Serraïki Konservopoiïa Oporokipeftikon Serko AE (Serres, Greece), Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas — Sopragol, SA (Mora, Portugal), Sugalidal — Indústrias de Alimentação, SA (Benavente, Portugal), Sutol — Indústrias Alimentares, Lda (Alcácer do Sal, Portugal), Zanae Zýmai Artopoiías Níkoglou AE Viomichanía Empório Trofímon (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: J. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the provisions of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Regulation No 543/2011 (1);

               —

               Order that the present case and case T-454/10 be joined, for the purposes of the oral procedure and of the final judgment, or, at least, for the purposes of the oral procedure; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation No 543/2011 breaches Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), as:

                           —

                           It wrongly states that investments and actions related to the transformation of fruit and vegetables into processed fruit and vegetables may be eligible for support; and

                           —

                           It wrongly included the so-called non-‘genuine processing activities’ (which apparently cover preparation and post-genuine processing) in the value of marketed production of products intended for processing, as the Single CMO Regulation establishes that the provisions on producer organisations, namely the granting of aid, shall apply only to products covered by the common market organisation for fruit and vegetables.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by granting to producer organisations aid that covers industrial operations performed over fruit and vegetables intended for processing, also carried out by private industries, Commission Regulation No 543/2011 breaches the principle of non-discrimination which prohibits treating comparable situations differently, unless such treatment is objectively justified.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by granting to producer organisations aid that covers industrial operations performed over fruit and vegetables intended for processing, also carried out by private industries, Commission Regulation No 543/2011 breaches the principle of proportionality in so far as it exceeds what would be necessary to achieve a hypothetical objective of the Common Agricultural Policy related to the vertical integration of producer organisations.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1)


title: Case C-271/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation, formerly Sea Handling SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2015 in Case T-456/13, Sea Handling v Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/17

         Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation, formerly Sea Handling SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2015 in Case T-456/13, Sea Handling v Commission
   (Case C-271/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation, formerly Sea Handling SpA (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2015 in Case T-456/13;

               2.

               annul European Commission Decision Ref. Ares (2013) 2028929 of 12 June 2013 refusing SEA Handling’s request for access to certain documents concerning Case SA.21420 — Italy/SEA Handling;

               3.

               order the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               First ground alleging that the General Court erred in law and provided contradictory and insufficient reasoning in the judgment under appeal, in the assessment of the exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations as referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1).
               The General Court erred in law in so far as it upheld the Commission’s use to the general presumption of confidentiality in respect of a request for access to specific documents. The General Court’s interpretation of the exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 introduces a restriction on the right of access to documents which (i) is disproportionate to the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and (ii) lacks an adequate statement of reasons.
               With regard to the first objection, the appellant complains that the General Court cannot allow the Commission to oppose the general presumption in favour of a request for access to documents of a state aid procedure which identifies, in a precise and timely manner, the documents requested. This is all the more so when, in a context like the present case, characterised by deplorable procedural infringements attributable to the Commission, such an action ends up transforming the general presumption of confidentiality into an irrebuttable presumption, which cannot be challenged by the party seeking access to the measures, in breach of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
               With regard to the second objection, the appellant complains that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasons for considering that it was possible to apply the legal principle set out by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 29 June 2010 in Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, C-139/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:376, to cases concerning a request for access not to the entire file but to specifically identified documents.

               2.

               Second ground alleging error of law in the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court rejects the possibility of partial access to the documents.
               The General Court erred in holding that the application of the general presumption justified the refusal to disclose the requested documents, approving the Commission’s refusal to grant partial access to them. In the present case, there was a failure to meet the conditions which previously have led the General Court to deny partial access to files covered by the general presumption of confidentiality; the Commission therefore could not be entitled to refuse partial access solely on the ground that the documents requested were contained in the administrative file concerning a procedure for reviewing State aid.

               3.

               Third ground alleging error of law in the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to examine the documents affected by the refusal of access.
               The General Court erred in law in so far as it failed to fulfil its obligation to examine the documents affected by the refusal of access, stating that it could review the Commission’s actions without examining the documentation in question.

               4.

               Fourth ground alleging that the General Court contradicted itself and erred in law in so far as it failed to take sufficient account of the procedural defects committed when adopting the contested decision.
               The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in so far as the General Court did not accept that the procedural defects committed by the Commission had an impact on the ability of the applicant to put forward its point of view as to the applicability of the presumption of confidentiality in the case at issue. The General Court failed to consider that the errors in question nullified the applicant’s procedural rights and, thereby, transformed the general presumption of harm to the investigative activities from a rebuttable presumption to an irrebuttable one.

               5.

               Fifth ground alleging error of law in so far as the General Court denied the existence of an overriding public interest.
               The General Court erred in law by holding that there was no overriding public interest that can prevail against the exceptions in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 without taking into account the arguments put forward by the appellant in that regard.

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


title: Case C-565/10: Action brought on 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/28

         Action brought on 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-565/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, (1) under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annex IB thereto, and under Article 10 of that directive, by failing to take the measures necessary in order to ensure that:

                           —

                           the following agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, which discharge into receiving waters that are not regarded as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC, are provided with collecting systems in accordance with the first indent of Article 3(1) of that directive:

                                       —

                                       Chieti and Gissi (Abruzzo),

                                       —

                                       Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Bianco, Cassano allo Ionio, Castrovillari Crotone, Santa Maria del Cedro, Gioia Tauro, Lamezia Terme, Melito di Porto Salvo, Mesoraca, Montebello Ionico, Montepaone, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria, Rende, Rossano, Scalea, Sellia Marina, Soverato and Strongoli (Calabria),

                                       —

                                       Afragola, Nola, Ariano Irpino, Avellino, Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, Caserta, Mercato Sanseverino, Torre del Greco, Aversa, Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Napoli Est, Napoli Nord, Napoli Ovest, Vico Equense, Salerno and Montesarchio (Campania),

                                       —

                                       Cervignano del Friuli and Monfalcone (Friuli-Venezia Giulia),

                                       —

                                       Frascati and Zagarolo (Lazio),

                                       —

                                       Camisano, Genova, La Spezia, Riva Ligure, Sanremo and Ventimiglia (Liguria),

                                       —

                                       Tolentino (Marche),

                                       —

                                       Campobasso 1 and Isernia (Molise),

                                       —

                                       Manduria, Porto Cesareo, Supersano and Traviano (Apulia),

                                       —

                                       Follonica and Piombino (Tuscany),

                                       —

                                       Misterbianco + others, Paternò, Aci Catena, Adrano, Catania + others, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto + others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Acireale + others, Belpasso, Biancavilla, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Caltanissetta-San Cataldo, Macchitella, Niscemi, Agrigento and outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Porto Empedocle, Sciacca, Cefalù, Carini + ASI Palermo, Monreale, Palermo + peripheral districts, Santa Flavia, Augusta, Avola, Priolo Gargallo, Carlentini, Ragusa, Marina di Ragusa, Santa Croce Camerina, Vittoria, Scoglitti, Favignana, Marsala, Partanna l (Villa Ruggero), Capo d’Orlando, Giardini Naxos, Consortile Letojanni, Pace del Mela, Piraino, Roccalumera, Consortile Sant’Agata Militello, Consortile Torregrotta, Messina l, Messina and Messina 6 (Sicily);

                           —

                           in the following agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000, which discharge into receiving waters that are not regarded as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC, the urban waste water entering collecting systems undergoes treatment as laid down in Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive:

                                       —

                                       Gissi and Lanciano-Castel Frentano (Abruzzo),

                                       —

                                       Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Cassano allo Ionio, Castrovillari, Crotone, Melito di Porto Salvo, Montebello Ionico, Montepaone, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria and Rossano (Calabria),

                                       —

                                       Ariano Irpino, Avellino, Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, Caserta, Aversa, Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Massa Lubrense, Napoli Est, Napoli Nord and Vico Equense (Campania),

                                       —

                                       Trieste-Muggia-San Dorligo (Friuli-Venezia Giulia),

                                       —

                                       Zagarolo (Lazio),

                                       —

                                       Albenga, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Finale Ligure, Genova, Imperia, La Spezia, Margherita Ligure, Quinto, Rapallo, Recco and Riva Ligure (Liguria),

                                       —

                                       Campobasso l and Isernia (Molise),

                                       —

                                       Casamassima, Casarano, Manduria, Monte Sant’Angelo, Porto Cesareo, Salice Salentino, San Giovanni Rotondo, San Vito dei Normanni, Squinzano, Supersano and Vernole (Apulia),

                                       —

                                       Vicenza (Veneto),

                                       —

                                       Misterbianco + others, Scordia-Militello Val di Catania, Palagonia, Aci Catena, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto + others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Bronte, Acireale + others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Macchitella, Niscemi, Riesi, Agrigento and outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Menfi, Porto Empedocle, Ribera, Sciacca, Bagheria, Cefalù, Carini + ASI Palermo, Misilmeri, Monreale, Santa Flavia, Termini Imerese, Trabia, Augusta, Avola, Carlentini, Rosolini, Pozzallo, Ragusa, Modica, Scicli, Scoglitti, Campobello di Mazara, Castelvetrano l, Triscina Marinella, Trapani-Erice (Casa santa), Favignana, Marsala, Mazara del Vallo, Partanna l (Villa Ruggero), Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, Capo d’Orlando, Furnari, Giardini Naxos, Consortile Letojanni, Pace del Mela, Piraino, Roccalumera, Consortile Sant’Agata Militello, Consortile Torregrotta, Gioiosa Marea, Messina l, Messina 6, Milazzo, Patti and Rometta (Sicily); and

                           —

                           the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271/EEC are designed, constructed, operated and maintained in such a way as to ensure ‘sufficient performance’ under all normal local climatic conditions and that the design of those treatment plants takes account of the seasonal variations of the load in the agglomerations of:

                                       —

                                       Gissi and Lanciano-Castel Frentano (Abruzzo),

                                       —

                                       Acri, Siderno, Bagnara Calabra, Cassano allo Ionio, Castrovillari, Crotone, Melito di Porto Salvo, Montebello Ionico, Montepaone, Motta San Giovanni, Reggio Calabria and Rossano (Calabria),

                                       —

                                       Ariano Irpino, Avellino, Battipaglia, Benevento, Capaccio, Capri, Caserta, Aversa, Ischia, Casamicciola Terme, Forio, Massa Lubrense, Napoli Est, Napoli Nord and Vico Equense (Campania),

                                       —

                                       Trieste-Muggia-San Dorligo (Friuli-Venezia Giulia),

                                       —

                                       Zagarolo (Lazio),

                                       —

                                       Albenga, Borghetto Santo Spirito, Finale Ligure, Genova, Imperia, La Spezia, Margherita Ligure, Quinto, Rapallo, Recco and Riva Ligure (Liguria),

                                       —

                                       Casamassima, Casarano, Manduria, Monte Sant’Angelo, Porto Cesareo, Salice Salentino, San Giovanni Rotondo, San Vito dei Normanni, Squinzano, Supersano and Vernole (Apulia),

                                       —

                                       Vicenza (Veneto),

                                       —

                                       Misterbianco + others, Scordia — Militello Val di Catania, Palagonia, Aci Catena, Giarre-Mascali-Riposto + others, Caltagirone, Aci Castello, Bronte, Acireale + others, Belpasso, Gravina di Catania, Tremestieri Etneo, San Giovanni La Punta, Macchitella, Niscemi, Riesi, Agrigento and outskirts, Favara, Palma di Montechiaro, Menfi, Porto Empedocle, Ribera, Sciacca, Bagheria, Cefalù, Carini + ASI Palermo, Misilmeri, Monreale, Santa Flavia, Termini Imerese, Trabia, Augusta, Avola, Carlentini, Rosolini, Pozzallo, Ragusa, Modica, Scicli, Scoglitti, Campobello di Mazara, Castevetrano l, Triscina Marinella, Trapani-Erice (Casa santa), Favignana, Marsala, Mazara del Vallo, Partanna l (Villa Ruggero), Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, Capo d’Orlando, Furnari, Giardini Naxos, Consortile Letojanni, Pace del Mela, Piraino, Roccalumera, Consortile Sant’Agata Militello, Consortile Torregrotta, Gioiosa Marea, Messina l, Messina 6, Milazzo, Patti and Rometta (Sicily); and

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the Commission complains that, in parts of its territory, Italy has not correctly implemented Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.
   First and foremost, the Commission finds that there have been various infringements of the first indent of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC, under which the Member States were to ensure that, by 31 December 2000 at the latest, all agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 were provided with collecting systems for urban waste water in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex IA to that directive. That obligation was not correctly fulfilled in a number of the agglomerations falling within the scope of the provision in question in the Regions of Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Molise, Apulia, Tuscany and Sicily.
   Moreover, under Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, the Member States were to have ensured, by 31 December 2000 at the latest, that for all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 urban waste water entering collecting systems was to have undergone, before discharge, secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex IB to the directive. The Commission found that the provision in question had been infringed in a number of agglomerations in the Regions of Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Molise, Apulia, Veneto and Sicily. In most cases, the infringement of Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC also involves infringement of Article 10 of that directive, which provides that the urban waste water treatment plants were to be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in such a way as to ensure ‘sufficient performance’ under all normal local climatic conditions.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case C-613/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Request for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt — Article 20 of Protocol 4 — Proof of origin — Movement certificate EUR.1 — Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority — Refusal to apply preferential treatment)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-613/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Egypt - Article 20 of Protocol 4 - Proof of origin - Movement certificate EUR.1 - Replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued at a time when the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authority - Refusal to apply preferential treatment)
   2014/C 93/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helm Düngemittel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 20 of Protocol 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 39), as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU-Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006 (OJ 2006 L 73, p. 1) — Replacement movement certificate issued subsequently, at a point in time at which the goods were no longer under the control of the issuing customs authorities.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001, approved by Council Decision 2004/635/EC of 21 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the Egyptian origin of goods, within the meaning of the preferential customs arrangement established by that agreement, can be proved even in the case where the goods were divided up when they arrived in a first Member State in order that a portion of them could be sent to a second Member State and where the replacement movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the customs authorities of the first Member State for the portion of those goods sent to the second Member State does not satisfy the conditions for the issuance of such a certificate set out in Article 20 of Protocol 4 to that agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the EU Egypt Association Council of 17 February 2006.

               2.

               The administration of such proof requires, however, first, that the preferential origin of the goods initially imported from Egypt be established by means of a movement certificate EUR.1 issued by the Egyptian customs authorities in accordance with that protocol and, second, that the importer prove that the portion of the goods divided up in that first Member State and dispatched to the second Member State corresponds to a portion of the goods imported from Egypt into the first Member State. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2003.


title: Case C-404/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 1(1)(b) — Substantive scope — Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem — Classification — Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court — Measure relating to parental responsibility or measure relating to succession)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — proceedings brought by Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner
   (Case C-404/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(b) - Substantive scope - Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem - Classification - Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court - Measure relating to parental responsibility or measure relating to succession))
   (2015/C 389/11)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Marie Matoušková, acting as court commissioner

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constitutes a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus falls within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case F-10/13: Action brought on 3 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/39

         Action brought on 3 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-10/13)
   2013/C 108/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting a request for compensation made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations because of errors made when establishing her entitlements when she took up her duties and for the delay in rectifying those errors.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 March 2012 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant’s request for compensation of 13 January 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 172 236,42;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the applicant in the amount of the sums overpaid, as from the day on which the irregularity was discovered but not corrected, or, in any event, at least in the amount of the sums overpaid from the month of November 2010, when the applicant’s multiplication factor alone was corrected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-388/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/22

         Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission
   (Case T-388/16)
   (2016/C 350/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eval Europe NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-301/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by AEM S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002            EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 289/39
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Amga —                              Action brought on 30 September 2002 by AEM S.p.A.
Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA against the                             against the Commission of the European Communities
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-301/02)
                        (Case T-300/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/71)
                        (2002/C 289/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 European Communities on 30 September 2002 by AEM
European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Amga                          S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Carlo Croff, Alberto
— Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA, represented by                     Santa Maria and Giuseppe Pizzonia, lawyers.
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo and Massimo Merola, lawyers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State                      Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares that the three-
      Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and                      year tax regime relating to the profits of local public
      incompatible with the common market the three-year                         service undertakings the majority of the shares in which
      exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local                    are publicly owned, as introduced by Article 3(70) of Law
      public service undertakings the majority of the shares                     No 549 of 28 December 1995 and Article 66(14) of
      in which are publicly owned within the meaning of                          Decree-Law No 331 of 30 August 1993 (converted into
      Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on                     Law No 427 of 29 October 1993), constitutes State aid
      preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law                    which is incompatible with the common market (Article 2
      No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover                 of the decision), and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
      the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including                 the aid in question from the recipients thereof (Article 3
      the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);                          of the decision);
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei                     advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
Servizi v Commission and Case T-297/02 ACEA S.p.A. v                       Servizi v Commission, Case T-297/02 ACEA S.p.A. v Com-
Commission.                                                                mission and Case T-300/02 Amga S.p.A. v Commission.


title: Case T-339/11: Order of the General Court of 2 May 2012 — Spain v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/20

         Order of the General Court of 2 May 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-339/11) (1)

   2012/C 184/40
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-47/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2007 — Antartica v OHIM — Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark nasdaq — Earlier Community word mark NASDAQ — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2007 — Antartica v OHIM — Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq)
   (Case T-47/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark nasdaq - Earlier Community word mark NASDAQ - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 140/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Antartica Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Racca, lawyer)

      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 intervening before the Court of First Instance: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: J. van Manen and J. Hofhuis, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of OHIM of 7 December 2005 (Case R 752/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. and Antartica Srl.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-463/08: Action brought on 19 October 2008 — Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/39

         Action brought on 19 October 2008 — Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD)
   (Case T-463/08)
   (2008/C 327/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Imagion AG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: H. Blatzheim, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 August 2008 (Case R 488/2008-4); and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘DYNAMIC HD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45 (No 6 092 241)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal, in part, of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the word mark ‘DYNAMIC HD’ is neither descriptive, nor does it lack the necessary distinctive character;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use;

               —

               Breach of the duty to state reasons;

               —

               Breach of the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-150/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Greece v Commission (State aid — Interest-free loans, accompanied by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to cereal-collecting agricultural cooperatives — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to state reasons — Advantage — Aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-150/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Interest-free loans, accompanied by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to cereal-collecting agricultural cooperatives - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to state reasons - Advantage - Aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State))
   2014/C 175/48
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias, X. Basakou and Α. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Thomas and D. Triantafyllou, and subsequently by M. Triantafyllou and P. Němečkova, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/320/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning aid granted by Greece to cereal-producing farmers and cereal-collecting cooperatives (OJ L 164, p. 10).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application is rejected.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23. 6. 2012.


title: Case C-156/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Betting and gaming — Federal legislation banning games of chance via the internet which was not applied for a limited period in a federal entity of a Member State — Consistency — Proportionality)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG
   (Case C-156/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Betting and gaming - Federal legislation banning games of chance via the internet which was not applied for a limited period in a federal entity of a Member State - Consistency - Proportionality))
   2014/C 282/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers

      Defendant: Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation common to the majority of the federal entities of a Member State having a federal structure which prohibits, in principle, the organisation and facilitation of games of chance via the internet, where, for a limited period, a single federal entity has maintained in force more liberal legislation coexisting with the restrictive legislation of the other federal entities, provided that such legislation is able to satisfy the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-312/13: Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Claudiu Roşu v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Claudiu Roşu v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală
   (Case C-312/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/37
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.3013.


title: Case C-37/07: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-37/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/60)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-417/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (HIJOPUTA)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/59

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (HIJOPUTA)
   (Case T-417/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/94
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federico Cortés del Valle López (Maliaño, Spain) (represented by J. Calderón Chavero, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2010 in case R 175/2010-2;

               —

               consequently, annul the OHIM examiner’s decision of 24 November 2009;

               —

               uphold the applicant’s claims;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its contentions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA’ for goods and services in Classes 33, 35 and 39.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application for a Community trade mark refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: No infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) as the mark applied for is not contrary to accepted principles of morality.

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


title: Case C-526/07 P: Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia — Exclusion from competition — Application for damages — Determination of the extent of compensation — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/13

         Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-526/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia - Exclusion from competition - Application for damages - Determination of the extent of compensation - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2009/C 69/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and S. Corongiu, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-250/04 Combescot v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's application for recognition that the decision excluding him from the competition for appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia was unlawful; dismissed the same application for annulment of the procedure of that competition and of the decision making the appointment to the post concerned; and held that there was only non-material damage, rejecting the claim for compensation for the other heads of damage raised by the appellant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-698/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 28 December 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 28 December 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis
   (Case C-698/15)
   (2016/C 098/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendants: David Davis, Tom Watson, Peter Brice, Geoffrey Lewis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 (‘Digital Rights Ireland’) (including, in particular, paragraphs 60 to 62 thereof) lay down mandatory requirements of EU law applicable to a Member State's domestic regime governing access to data retained in accordance with national legislation, in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter (‘the EU Charter’)?

               2.

               Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Digital Rights Ireland expand the scope of Articles 7 and/or 8 of the EU Charter beyond that of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) as established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’)?


title: Case T-439/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/47

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission
   (Case T-439/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/63)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Amrita Sarl (Scorrano, Italy) and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex to the order (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), where appropriate after having declined to apply Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Amrita Sarl and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-157/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 April 2014 — Société Neptune Distribution v Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 April 2014 — Société Neptune Distribution v Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance
   (Case C-157/14)
   2014/C 184/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Neptune Distribution

      Defendant: Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the basis for calculating the ‘equivalent value for salt’ of the quantity of sodium present in a foodstuff, for the purposes of the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) constituted only by the quantity of sodium which, when associated with chloride ions, forms sodium chloride, or table salt, or does it include the total quantity of sodium in all its forms contained in the foodstuff?

               2.

               In the latter case, do Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC and Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/54/EC, (2) together with Annex III to the latter directive, read in the light of the equivalence established between sodium and salt in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, infringe the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union, read with Article 11(1) (freedom of expression and information) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union, and Article 19 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by prohibiting a distributor of mineral water from placing on his labels and advertising material any indication as to the low salt content or sodium chloride content, which could be that of his product that is high in sodium bicarbonate, inasmuch as that indication would be likely to mislead the purchaser in regard to the total sodium content of the water?’

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

      (2)  Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 164, p. 45).