title: Case C-172/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Oikeus by order of that court of 27 April 1999 in the case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen

text:
C 204/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
    protection of the national construction industry and the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
    reduction in national unemployment for the purpose of                Oikeus by order of that court of 27 April 1999 in the case
    preventing social tension, consistent with Community law?            of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen
2. Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom
    to provide services under the EC Treaty if a domestic                                         (Case C-172/99)
    employer can pay less than the minimum wage laid down
    in a collective agreement declared to be generally binding                                    (1999/C 204/52)
    by concluding a collective agreement specific to one
    undertaking (and enjoying precedence), whereas this is
    — at least in fact — not possible for a non-German EC                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    employer in the case where he proposes to post workers               European Communities by an order of the Korkein Oikeus
    to the Federal Republic of Germany?                                  (Supreme Court), Finland, of 27 April 1999, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and
                                                                         Pentti Juntunen on the following question:
                                                                         Is a situation in which the operation of bus routes passes from
                                                                         one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a
                                                                         tender procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Commission of the                    contracts (1) to be regarded as a transfer of a business for the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                     purposes of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC (2)?
                          (Case C-168/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                          (1999/C 204/51)                                    contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May                    safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          undertakings, businesses or arts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
                                                                             5.3.1977, p. 26).
represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or
    communicate all the laws, regulations and administrative             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
    96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating                  (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999,
    Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of                  in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
    veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and              Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertain-
    certain animal products and amending Directives                          ment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU)
    90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (1), the Kingdom of Spain
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                                                                                (Case C-173/99)
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the High Court of
The mandatory nature of the provisions ot the third paragraph            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article l0 of the EC           Office), of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary            Registry on 10 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic            of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.             Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and
That period, which is laid down in Article 4 of the directive,           Theatre Union (BECTU), on the following questions:
expired on 1 July 1997 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                         1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the conditions for
                                                                              entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by
(1) OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1.                                                      national legislation and/or practice’ in Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
                                                                              certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ
                                                                              1993 L 307, p. 18: ‘the Working Time Directive’) to be


title: Case C-182/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 11 April 2017 — Ntp. Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 11 April 2017 — Ntp. Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-182/17)
   (2017/C 221/08)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ntp. Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft.

      Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the concept of ‘bod[y] governed by public law’ in the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax include a commercial company which is 100 % owned by a municipality?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, may it be considered that the commercial company acts as a public authority when performing tasks that are the responsibility of the municipality but that the latter delegates to that company?

               3.

               If the answer to either of the previous questions is in the negative, may it be considered that the amount paid by the municipality to the commercial company for performing the tasks constitutes consideration?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-436/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Davide Cazzorla (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/6

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Davide Cazzorla
   (Case C-436/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Criminal proceedings against

   Davide Cazzorla

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-644/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission
   (Case T-644/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme - Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 191/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2014) 4485 final of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 194 275,34, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241311168, 3241311170 and 3241311175 relating to EUR 62 649,47, EUR 78 991,12 and EUR 52 634,75 respectively.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-644/14 R.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-116/03 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2003 by Augusto Fichtner, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-75/00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission

text:
21.6.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/19
Appeal brought on 14 March 2003 by Augusto Fichtner,                           b)   even if it should be deemed that the appellant did,
a former official of the Commission of the European                                 however, fail to fulfil said obligation, such breach
Communities, against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of                             could not be held to have been committed ‘intention-
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case                           ally or through negligence’;
           T-75/00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission
                                                                         2.    the principle of proportionality (by the administration)
                         (Case C-116/03 P)                                     by:
                                                                               a)   misuse of its powers: the Commission, by adopting
                          (2003/C 146/31)
                                                                                the contested decision, pursued an objective other
                                                                                that for which the relevant power had been con-
                                                                                ferred on it (safeguarding the internal rules of the
                                                                                civil service) and, in any event, in order to achieve
An appeal against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of the                            purposes other than those declared;
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-75/
00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission was brought before the
                                                                               b)   manifest error of assessment of the facts: the Com-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March                            mission failed to take into account:
2003 by Augusto Fichtner, represented by Michele Tamburini
and Franco Colussi, lawyers.
                                                                                1.    the good faith of the appellant;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                2.    that he could not have been refused the per-
                                                                                mission in question since the outside activity
—     set aside the contested judgment;                                                   did not impair the official’s independence nor
                                                                                was detrimental to the work of the Communi-
—     uphold the claims submitted at first instance and, accord-                          ties.
      ingly;
      —     annul the contested decision of the appointing
            authority of 30 September 1999, which is at issue;
      —     order the Commission to pay him the outstanding
            remuneration and allowances as revalued and with
            interest to run from the date on which the decision
            took effect until actual payment is made;
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
                                                                         Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Sezione Sesta by order of
      —     order the Commission to make good the material
                                                                         that Court of 17 December 2002 in the case of Società
            and non-material damage suffered by the appellant,
                                                                         Italiana Dragaggi s.p.a. against Ministero delle Infrastruttu-
            such compensation being assessed at EUR 50 000 or
                                                                         re e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli
            any other amount which the Court might deem
                                                                                Venezia Giulia
            appropriate and equitable or as may be subsequently
            decided;
                                                                                (Case C-117/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 146/32)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is contrary to
Community law, in particular to:                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in
                                                                         sede giurisdizionale, Sezione Sesta (Judicial Committee of the
1.    Article 86(1) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as:
                                                                         Council of State, Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2002,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 March 2003, for a
      a)    the appellant did not fail to fulfil his obligations         preliminary ruling in the case of Società Italiana Dragaggi s.p.a.
            under the third paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff         against Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and
            Regulations, having proved that he did request               Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following
            permission to pursue an outside activity;                    question:


title: Case C-375/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia SA (Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 5 — Abuse of a dominant position — Powers of the competition authorities of the Member States to find that there has been no breach of Article 102 TFEU)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Republic of Poland) — Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia SA
   (Case C-375/09) (1)

   (Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 5 - Abuse of a dominant position - Powers of the competition authorities of the Member States to find that there has been no breach of Article 102 TFEU)
   2011/C 186/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Defendant: Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o., now Netia SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Abuse of a dominant position — Whether the competition authorities of the Member States have the power to take a decision stating that Article 82 EC is not applicable to the commercial practices of an undertaking

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a national competition authority, in the case where, in order to apply Article 102 TFEU, it examines whether the conditions for applying that article are satisfied and where, following that examination, it forms the view that there has been no abuse, from being able to take a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article;

               2.

               The second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 1/2003 is directly applicable and precludes the application of a rule of national law which would require a procedure relating to the application of Article 102 TFEU to be brought to an end by a decision stating that there has been no breach of that article.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-270/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2016 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2016 in Case F-23/15, Kerstens v Commission

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/47

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2016 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2016 in Case F-23/15, Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-270/16 P)
   (2016/C 260/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2016 in Kerstens v Commission (Case F-23/15);

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence and inconsistent reasoning as regards the absence of an administrative inquiry report within the meaning of Articles 2 to 4 of the 2004 general implementing provisions concerning the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures (‘the 2004 GIPs’).

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law linked to the lack of annulment of a disciplinary decision not based on an administrative inquiry report within the meaning of the 2004 GIPs.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the judgment, breach of the obligation to state reasons, distortion of the facts and evidence, infringement of Article 4(4) of the 2004 GIPs and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of the separation of powers between the judicial and administrative authorities, breach of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, of the adversarial principle and of the principle of non-discrimination, as well as errors of law in relation to the examination by the Civil Service Tribunal of the consequences of the irregularities committed by the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and breach of the adversarial principle linked to a misinterpretation of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex IX thereto.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal, put forward in the alternative, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and an error of law in respect of the principle that disciplinary matters must be dealt with within a reasonable period of time.


title: Case T-26/03: Action brought on 28 January 2003 by LEP International BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/31
Action brought on 28 January 2003 by LEP International                   The applicant states, moreover, that it acted in good faith and
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                    that it was not to blame for the irregularities. Nor, according
                                                                         to the applicant, can any manifest negligence be imputed to it.
                                                                         The fact that the applicant did not take out insurance does
                         (Case T-26/03)                                  not, according to it, constitute negligence. On the contrary,
                                                                         businesses are free to decide whether and, if so, how they
                                                                         cover themselves against possible risks.
                         (2003/C 70/49)
                                                                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ No L 302,
                                                                              19.10.1992, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 January 2003 by LEP Inter-
national BV, established in Schiphol-Rijk (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Cornelis de Bie and Paul Bakker.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 January 2003 by S.P. S.p.A against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-27/03)
—     annul the decision of the European Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/50)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Decision of the
European Commission of 7 October 2002 in case REM 08/                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
003 concerning an application for remission of import duties             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
under Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1).                    European Communities on 30 January 2003 by S.P. S.p.A.,
                                                                         represented by Gianluca Belotti and Nicola Pisani, lawyers.
The applicant drew up, on the instructions of Hector Inter-
national Tpt. Ltd., documents for the transport of meat to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Morocco under the external Community transit procedure.
However, the applicant states that, through acts of third                —      declare non-existent and/or null and void or, in any event,
parties, that transit operation was not properly discharged, as                 annul the contested decision;
a result of which the applicant, as the holder of the documents,
was requested to pay the customs duties owed. It therefore
submitted an application to the Netherlands authorities for              —      in the alternative, annul or reduce the penalty imposed
remission of the import duties owed. The application was                        on S.P.;
forwarded to the Commission, which rejected it in the
contested decision.                                                      —      in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant argues that the contested decision infringes
Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, that it assesses             Pleas in law and main arguments
the facts incorrectly and that it is based on an inadequate
statement of reasons.
                                                                         Among various grounds of annulment, the applicant alleges
                                                                         lack of competence of the Commission to adopt on 17 Decem-
According to the applicant, a special circumstance exists since          ber 2002 a decision based on Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty
the customs authorities knew at an early stage that the external         when that treaty expired on 22 July 2002, resulting in the
transit procedure would not be discharged and did not inform             nullity of the decision. According to the applicants, the
the applicant of this. The applicant further argues that a special       Commission did not have the power to adopt the abovemen-
circumstance exists inasmuch as a Spanish official may have              tioned decision in the absence of an express decision to that
been involved.                                                           effect on the part of the Member States.


title: Case C-221/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First Hall of the Civil Court (Republic of Malta), made on 17 June 2009 — AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd and Avukat Ġenerali

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First Hall of the Civil Court (Republic of Malta), made on 17 June 2009 — AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd and Avukat Ġenerali
   (Case C-221/09)
   2009/C 205/41
   Language of the case: Maltese

      Referring court

   Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AJD Tuna Ltd

      Defendants: Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd; Avukat Ġenerali

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 (1) invalid because it infringes Article 253 of the Treaty insofar as it does not state sufficiently the reasons for the adoption of the emergency measures established in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the said regulation, and insofar as it does not give a clear enough picture of the reasoning behind these measures?

               2)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because it infringes Article 7(1) of Council Regulation No 2371/2002 (2) insofar as, in its recitals, it does not establish adequately (i) the existence of a serious threat to the conservation of living aquatic resources or to the marine eco-system caused by fishing activities and (ii) the need to take immediate action?

               3)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid insofar as the adopted measures deprive Community operators, such as the applicant, of their legitimate expectations founded on Article 1 of Commission Regulation No 446/2008 (3) of 22 May 2008 and on Article 2 of Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002?

               4)

               Is Article 3 of Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because it infringes the principle of proportionality insofar as it implies that (i) no Community operator can exercise the activity of landing or placing in cages tuna for fattening or farming, even for tuna caught previously and perfectly in conformity with Commission Regulation No 530/2008; and (ii) no Community operator can carry out these activities with regards to tuna caught by fishermen whose ships do not fly the flag of one of the Member States listed in Article 1 of Commission Regulation No 530/2008, even when this tuna was caught in conformity with the quotas laid down by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas?

               5)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because it infringes the principle of proportionality insofar as the Commission failed to establish that the measure it was going to adopt would contribute towards the recovery of tuna stocks?

               6)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because the adopted measures are unreasonable and discriminatory on grounds of nationality, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, insofar as the said regulation makes a distinction between purse seiners flying the Spanish flag and those flying the flag of Greece, Italy, France, Cyprus and Malta, and insofar as it makes a distinction between these six Member States and the other Member States?

               7)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because the principles of justice as protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were not respected insofar as the interested parties and the Member States were not given any opportunity to submit their written comments prior to the adoption of the decision?

               8)

               Is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because the adversarial principle (audi alteram partem), as a general principle of Community law, was not respected insofar as the interested parties and the Member States were not given any opportunity to submit their written comments prior to the adoption of the decision?

               9)

               Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 2371/2008 invalid because the adversarial principle (audi alteram partem), as a general principle of Community law, and/or the principles of justice as protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were not respected, and consequently, is Commission Regulation No 530/2008 invalid because it was based on Council Regulation No 2371/2008?

               10)

               In the eventuality that the Court of Justice of the European Communities decides that Commission Regulation No 530/2008 is valid, should this regulation be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted in Article 3 of the said regulation also preclude Community operators from accepting landings, the placing in cages for fattening or farming, or transhipments in Community waters or ports of bluefin tuna caught in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and the Mediterranean sea by purse seiners flying the flag of a third country?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea
   OJ L 155, p. 9

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

      OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59–80

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 446/2008 of 22 May 2008 adapting certain bluefin tuna quotas in 2008 pursuant to Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy
   OJ L 134, p. 11


title: Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-100/97)

text:
No C 131/10            r EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            country ( Denmark ), travels to a third EU country
                                                                                ( England ), where the person suffers injury, to receive
                                                                                hospital treatment free-of-charge in the second EU
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                            country ( Denmark ) for the injury suffered, where the
those in Case C-56/97 (2 ); the period prescribed by the                        hospital treatment has been interrupted by the citizen
Directive expired on 23 July 1993 .                                             returning to Denmark where the hospital treatment is
                                                                                continued ? It is assumed that what is involved is a
                                                                                continuous course of treatment.
(') OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
                                                                           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Arhus, by
a letter of 5 March 1997 in the case of Elly Bach v. Arhus
                             Amtskommune                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                             ( Case C-97/97)                               28 February 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
                               ( 97/C 131 /24 )                            freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm
                                                                                Verlag Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-99/97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                ( 97/C 131 /25 )
European Communities by letter of 5 March 1997 from
 Retten i Arhus (Arhus Court), which was received at the
 Court Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling
 in the case between Elly Bach and Arhus Amtskommune
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
 on the following questions :
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna )
                                                                           of 28 February 1997, which was received at the Court
 1 . In the application of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC )                Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       No 1408/71           and Annex VI thereto, point B ( 2 ),           case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
       should that provision, including the requirement as                 Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH on
       regards a stay, be interpreted strictly according to its            the following question:
       wording, or may the provision be interpreted as
       meaning that an EU citizen is always entitled to
       medical treatment free-of-charge in one Member State,
       even if the injury occurred, and the first part of the               Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
       medical treatment was given, in another Member                       precluding application of legislation of Member State A
       State ?                                                              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
                                                                            from selling in Member State A a periodically published
                                                                            magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
       In the reply, it should be assumed that what is                      puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
       involved is a continuous course of treatment which                   Member State B ?
       was interrupted in one Member State and continued in
       another. It is thus not a question of follow-up
       treatment .
  2 . May the term 'reside' in Article 31 be interpreted
       purposively in order to cover an EU country where a
       citizen, under other EU legislation, lawfully stays for              Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
       up to six months of the year in a summer house                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       property ? It should be noted that the stay is not of an                                          Luxembourg
        occupational character, and that the citizen is not                                           Case C-100/97 )
        registered in that country.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /26
   3 . Regardless of the scope of Article 31 in Regulation
        No 1408/71 , is not Annex VI, point B ( 2 ), per se a
        sufficient basis for a citizen resident in one EU country            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
        ( Spain ), who, during a holiday stay in another EU                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 4 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 131 / 11
Communities on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of the                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la               those in Case C-56/97 ( 3 ); the time-limits expired on
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         1 March 1995 and 1 January 1995 respectively.
                                                                        (') OJ No L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p . 32 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 201 , 4 . 8 . 1994 , p . 26 .
that the Court should :                                                 ( 3 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     time-limits laid down the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
     with Commission Directive 94/1 6/EC of 22 April 1994                        Removal from the register of Case C-29/96 ( 1 )
     amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable                                              ( 97/C 131 /27 )
     substances and products in animal nutrition              and
     Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July amending
     Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting                  By order of 19 February 1997 the President of the Fifth
     intra-Community trade in bovine animals and                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of . the European
     swine ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 96/         Case C-29/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     16/EC and Article 2 of Directive 94/42/EC,
                                                                        High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench
                                                                        Division ( United Kingdom)): Norbrook Laboratories Ltd
                                                                        v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs .                                                            (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agent: Gerard Berscheid ) — application for
                        of 30 January 1997                              annulment of Article 1 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 455/95
                                                                        of 28 February 1995 amending Regulations ( EEC )
in    Case    T-117/95 :     Corman    v.   Commission    of   the
                                                                        No 1547/87 and ( EEC ) No 1589/87 as regards the
                     European Communities (')                           buying-in of butter by the intervention agencies and
                                                                        Regulations ( EEC ) No 2191 /81 and ( EEC ) No 570/88 as
 (Action for annulment — Regulations (EEC) No 570/88
and (EC) No 455/95 — Aid for butter for use in the
                                                                        regards the grant of aid for the purchase and sale of butter
                                                                        at a reduced price to certain categories of consumers and
manufacture of certain categories of products —
Definition of butter — Definition of intermediate product
                                                                        industries ( OJ No L 46, 1 . 3 . 1995 , p. 31 ), the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcfa
— Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                        Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J.
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                        Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                           ( 97/C 131 /28 )                             given a judgment on 30 January 1997 in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-117/95 N. Corman SA, established in Goe                       C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Limbourg ( Belgium ), represented by Lucette Defalque, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue


title: Case T-56/00: Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of
                                                                              20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture (3), as regards, in particular,
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)                      the obligation to provide for rational and responsible
     No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                     exploitation of live aquatic resources of the sea and the
     fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain              principle of relative stability;
     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
     Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters               — Infringement of the precautionary principle provided for
     where limitations in catch are required and amending                     in Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
     Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
                                                                          — Infringement of Regulation No 685/95, cited above,
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of                     through transfer of a quota from one zone to another,
     Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                         given that the said regulation provides for the transfer of
     27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort                    quotas once a total allowable catch (TAC) has been fixed
     relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,               for both zones.
     on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council
     approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone              Finally, the applicants allege infringement of Article 6 of the
     VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                           European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                          Freedoms.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 89.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 71 of 31.3.1995, p. 5.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 92 of 16.4.1993, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The applicants oppose the authorisation for the transfer of
3 000 tonnes of anchovies from ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
area 34.1.1., by the Portuguese Republic to the French Republic
to be fished in waters under French jurisdiction in ICES zone
VIII. That authorisation appears in part nine of Annex ID,                Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit
relating to anchovy in zones IX and X, CECAF 34.1.1., to                  International Limited against the Council of the European
Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999                  Union and the Commission of the European Communities
fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels,                                         (Case T-56/00)
in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending
Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1).                                                                     (2000/C 135/45)
The applicants also allege the illegality of Council Regulation                              (Language of the case: English)
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
resources (2).                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, they allege:                                  on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited,
                                                                          represented by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
— There is no res judicata in this case despite the fact that the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Court of Justice gave a ruling, in its judgment of 5 October
     1999, on the said transfer of quota carried out in 1995,             — order that the measure of the damages be the level of the
     and that there is no overlap with the contested regulations;             cost of the special export certificates or in the alternative
                                                                              propose other criteria on which the damage may be
                                                                              calculated;
— There is a manifest error in the assessment of the facts
     since the consequences of the scientific reports, as com-
     pared with other criteria, are underestimated;                       — order payment of interest on the damages caused at the
                                                                              appropriate level;
— The objectives of the common agricultural policy envisaged              — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs
     in Article 33 of the EC Treaty have been disregarded;                    of these proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
The applicant in the present case is a member of the Dole                                           (Case T-60/00)
Group of companies which is a group of companies engaged
in the production, purchase, consignment and sale of green
third-country bananas to, and in, the European Community,                                          (2000/C 135/46)
within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1442/93, of June 1993, laying down delay rules for
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas
into the Community (1).                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
The application concerns the damage suffered by the applicant              Communities on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou, resid-
through having to purchase export licences in the period from              ing at Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
1995 to 1998 in order to enable its agents to exercise rights              Bar.
to obtain import licences in order to sell bananas in the
Community. The applicant was entitled, through its agents, to
Category A banana import licences.                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of 5 July 1999 of the appointing
Regulation No 478/95(2) made the purchase and presentation                     authority refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation
of an export licence from certain countries a precondition for                 allowance;
the issue of the EC import licence.
                                                                           — annul the decision of 21 December 1999 by which the
                                                                               appointing authority rejects the applicant’s complaint that
                                                                               the contested decision should be annulled;
The European Court of Justice annulled Council Decision
94/800 (3) and the Commission Regulation No 478/95, to the
extent to which they discriminated between the different                   — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the expatriation
categories of operators set out in Council Regulation                          allowance as from 1 May 1999, minus, for the past, what
No 404/93 establishing the common organisation of the                          was granted to her by way of expatriation allowance;
market in bananas(4).
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant submits that the discriminatory nature and the
illegality of the above mentioned measures have caused it                  Pleas in law and main arguments
substantial loss and damage and constitute a breach of a
superior rule of law for the protection of the applicant.
                                                                           The applicant, an official of Greek nationality at the Council,
                                                                           claims in particular that, contrary to the contested decision,
                                                                           her principal residence, during the period of reference, was
(1) OJ L 142 of 25.6.1993, p. 62.                                          Athens. Although she arrived in Belgium in 1987, her
(2) Regulation No 478/95, of 1 March 1995, on additional rules for         residence in Brussels was only provisional and limited for the
    the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/95 as regards      purposes of studying. The functions she exercised in the
    the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the          Schengen General Secretariat between 1993 and 1999 should
    Community and amending (EEC) No. 1442/92 (OJ 1995 L 49, of             not be taken into account in respect of occupation within an
    4.3.1995, p. 13).
(3) Council Decision 94/800, of 22 December 1994, concerning the
                                                                           international organisation referred to in the second indent of
    conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards matters              Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
    whithin its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
    Round multilateral negociations (1986-1994) (OJ L 336, of
    23.12.1994, p. 1).                                                     In taking the contested decision, the defendant committed a
(4) OJ L 471 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second
                                                                           paragraph of Article 25 and Article 69 thereof, and of Annex
                                                                           VII thereto.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (Family benefits — Child-raising allowance — Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment — Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (1)

   (Family benefits - Child-raising allowance - Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment - Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence)
   (2005/C 229/03)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-153/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg), made by decision of 6 March 2003, received at the Court on 3 April 2003, in the proceedings Caisse nationale des prestations familiales and Ursula Schwarz, née Weide, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise by the spouse of the person entitled to a family benefit in pursuance of Article 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, of a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence of the children suspends entitlement to allowances in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 up to the amount of the child-raising allowances provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, irrespective of who is designated as being directly entitled to the family allowances by the legislation of that State.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003


title: Case C-323/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC — Management plan — Adequate and integrated network of disposal installations — Obligation to put in place waste treatment providing the best result for human health and environmental protection)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-323/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC - Management plan - Adequate and integrated network of disposal installations - Obligation to put in place waste treatment providing the best result for human health and environmental protection))
   (2014/C 462/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Italian Republic,

                           —

                           by not taking all necessary measures to ensure that part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO, excluding the Cecchina landfill, and to those of the Latina SubATO undergoes treatment, including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1), in conjunction with Article 6(a), of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

                           —

                           and by failing to establish in the region of Lazio an integrated and adequate network of waste management installations which takes into account best available techniques, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-411/99: Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
18.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/23
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission                              Removal from the register of Case C-116/99 (1)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                 Austria
                                                                                (1999/C 366/40)
                           (Case C-411/99)
                                                                          By order of 21 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                           (1999/C 366/38)
                                                                          from the register of Case C-116/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
     the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-349/98 (1)
     95/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council
     of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the
     transmission of television signals, the Republic of Austria                                  (1999/C 366/41)
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       By order of 22 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-349/98: Commission of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               European Communities v Italian Republic.
C-386/99 (2); the time-limit laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 23 August 1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
( 1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51.
(2) See p. 20 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-12/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-474/98 (1)
                           (1999/C 366/39)                                                        (1999/C 366/42)
By order of 20 September 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 23 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-474/98 (reference for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-12/99: Commission of the Euro-
ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille): Clinique Grégoire         pean Communities v Portuguese Republic.
SA v Direction Régionale des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.


title: Case C-328/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Enipower Spa v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Enipower Spa v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-328/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enipower Spa

      Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case T-361/00: Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio Cherenti against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/15
—     and to pay for all costs.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a grade C Commission official, is contesting the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission’s decision refusing to admit her to the tests in
                                                                          competition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list
The applicant explains that the Office for Harmonisation in               of administrative assistants, senior administrative assistants
the Internal Market (OHIM) published an advertisement for a               and principal administrative assistants (grades B5/B4, B3/B2
job as a lawyer-linguist. Before going to the trouble of sending          and B1), on the ground that she did not possess the pro-
in a full application pack for the job, he wrote to check that            fessional experience required in category B.
his age would not be held against him. In answer to his letter,
the OHIM sent him the application forms, stressed the                     The applicant complains that the Commission unlawfully
importance of relevant ‘qualifications and experience’, and               refused to take account of the professional experience gained
raised no objection to his age. Nevertheless, in August 2000              by her in a category C job at a level corresponding to the
he was rejected on the grounds that he was a year older than              duties to be performed.
the OHIM wished.
                                                                          Although the competition notice may have provided that the
In these circumstances, the applicant claims compensation on              candidates were to have acquired the professional experience
the basis of the illegality of the OHIM’s decision on the grounds         relating to category B, that condition and the contested
of discrimination in the OHIM’s employment procedure                      decision taken on the basis of the notice are equally vitiated by
(ageism) and breach of vested rights and legitimate expec-                illegality.
tations.
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martı́-                     Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
nez Alarcón against the Commission of the European                       Cherenti against the Commission of the European Com-
                            Communities                                                                munities
                          (Case T-357/00)                                                          (Case T-361/00)
                           (2001/C 61/29)                                                           (2001/C 61/30)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
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 27 November 2000 by Justina                       European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Martı́nez Alarcón, residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos           Cherenti, residing at Thuin (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                             Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-             —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                            board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that                    the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing                  decision of the appointing authority dated 7 September
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative                          2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;                     ted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant          —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 3 160 000, subject to alteration during                    the sum of BEF 7 350 000, subject to alteration during
      the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
      for material and non-material damage;                                     for material and non-material damage;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
                                                                         Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                                         (Case T-364/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Luigia Dricot                      Weyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-363/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
                          (2001/C 61/31)                                       board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
                                                                               the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
                                                                               decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October
                                                                               2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
                   (Language of the case: French)                              ted by the applicant;
                                                                         —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia                             for material and non-material damage;
Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-            The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                     forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during the
      course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for              Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.
      material and non-material damage;                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-366/00)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.,
                                                                         a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy Lever
                                                                         QC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor
                                                                         of Clifford Chance, London.


title: Case T-372/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

      Action brought on 20 August 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO)
      (Case T-372/12)
      (2012/C 331/50)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apro Tech Co., Ltd (Taichung Hsien, Taiwan)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 in Case R 196/2011-2, declaring that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the opponent’s action before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division granting Community trade mark No 8 253 551‘APRO’ (mixed) in full should have been annulled;

                  —

                  order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Apro Tech Co., Ltd

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘APRO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 8 253 551

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: national and Community figurative mark ‘B-PRO by Boomerang’ and Community word marks ‘PRO MOUNTAIN’ and ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods in Class 12

         Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

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


title: Case C-579/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP) v Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social (Structural funds — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Geographical eligibility — Implementation of an investment co-financed by the European Union from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP) v Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social
   (Case C-579/11) (1)

   (Structural funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Geographical eligibility - Implementation of an investment co-financed by the European Union from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place)
   2013/C 46/19
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP)

      Defendants: Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social

      Iintervening parties: Instituto Nacional de Administração, Sindicato dos Quadros Técnicos do Estado, Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Instituto do Desporto de Portugal

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 174, 175 and 176 TFEU, of Articles 5 to 8, 22, 32, 34, 35 and 56 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25) and Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ 2003 L 154, p. 1) — Structural operations — EU funding — Operational Programmes — Eligibility of expenditure — Common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of European Union primary law concerning economic, social and territorial cohesion and Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as not precluding an investment co-financed by the European Union from being implemented from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place, provided that the investment targets specifically and identifiably the eligible regions.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-247/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka and others v ECB

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/51

         Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka and others v ECB
   (Case T-247/16)
   (2016/C 270/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ECB's decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognise the availability of alternative measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation (1) and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, Art. 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation (2) and the right to a fair administrative procedure.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013, L 287, p. 63)

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014, L 141, p. 1)