title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 1996 in Case C-289/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Duty of prior notification pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC)

text:
 No C 336/ 14           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        a fall in production as a result of exceptional
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                   circumstances, without taking full account of the losses
                                                                             actually suffered by individual producers.
                     of 12 September 1996
 in Joined Cases C-254/94, C-255/94 and C-269/94                       3 . The third indent of Article 2, in conjunction with
 ( references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunale                  Article 21 , of Regulation (EEC) No 3477192 precludes
 Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio ): Fattoria Autonoma                     national rules not allowing a single cultivation
 Tabacchi and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle                   certificate or a single production quota to be given to a
                      Foreste and Others (M                                 producer group founded with the aim ofpromoting and
 (Common market organization — Raw tobacco — Council                        facilitating the cultivation of tobacco by its members,
 Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 — Commission Regulation                         while at the same time undertaking the first processing
                       (EEC) No 3477/92)                                    of tobacco on its own premises.
                           ( 96/C 336/25 )
                                                                      4 . Article 9 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2975/92
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                            of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the
                                                                            market in raw tobacco must be interpreted as meaning
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               that processing undertakings may be divided into seven
          published in the European Court Reports)                          distinct groups, on condition that the processing quota
                                                                            is determined according to the rules of calculation
                                                                            prescribed for the group to which the sub-category in
In Cases C-254/94, C-255/94 and C-269/94 : references to                    question belongs. Article 9 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the                   No 3477/92 must be interpreted as meaning that
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio ( Regional                     producers may have different rules for calculating the
Administrative Court, Lazio ) ( Italy ) for preliminary rulings             processing quota applied to them depending on the
in the proceedings pending before that court between                        processing undertaking to which they delivered during
Fattoria        Autonoma         Tabacchi     and     Ministero
                                                                            the reference period.
dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo ( AIMA ), Consorzio
                                                                      (■) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
Nazionale Tabacchicoltori ( CNT), Unione Nazionale
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 215 , 1992 , p . 70 .
Tabacchicoltori (Unata ) and Ditta Mario Pittari, between             ( 3 ) OJ No L 351 , 1992 , p . 11 .
Lino Bason and others and Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle
Foreste, Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo ( AIMA) and Unione Nazionale Tabacchicoltori
(Unata ), and between Associazione Professionale
Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani ( APTI ) and others and
Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, Consorzio
Nazionale Tabacchicoltori ( CNT ), Unione Nazionale                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Tabacchicoltori (Unata ) and Ditta Mario Pittari — on the                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2075/92 of
                                                                                of 17 September 1996
30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in
raw tobacco ( 2 ) and on the validity and interpretation of                  in Case C-289/94: Commission of the European
certain provisions of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                                   Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
No 3477/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down detailed rules             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Duty of prior notification
for the application of the raw tobacco quota system for the                          pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC)
1993 and 1994 harvests ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                                       ( 96/C 336/26 )
composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 1996 ,           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the operative part of which is as follows:                                       published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no             In Case C-289/94 : Commission of the European
      factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of             Communities v. Italian Republic — application for a
      Articles 3 (3), 9 and 10 of Commission Regulation              declaration that, by issuing four Ministry of Health Decrees,
      (EEC) No 3477/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down                namely Nos 256 and 257 of 1 August 1990 and those of
      detailed rules for the application of the raw tobacco          1 September 1990 and 7 June 1991 , without notifying them
      quota system for the 1993 and 1994 harvests.                   to the Commission at the draft stage, the Italian Republic
                                                                     failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of
2 . Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3477/92 does not            Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
      preclude the establishment, in advance and according to        down a procedure for the provision of information in the
      a system of flat-rate calculation, of reserves varying         field of technical standards and regulations ( 2 ), as amended
      according to the varieties of tobacco, which are intended      by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth
      for distribution among producers who have suffered             Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the
 ---pagebreak---  9 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/ 15
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur),                 1 . Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.                          period the laws, regulations and administrative
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                          provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1996 , in                    Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
 which it rules :                                                             coordination ofthe laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions relating to the application of review
 1 . By adopting four Ministry of Health Decrees, namely                     procedures to the award of public supply and public
      No 256 of 1 August 1990, No 257 of 1 August 1990 and                    works contracts, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      those of 1 September 1990 and 7 June 1991 , without                    fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 5 of that
      notifying them to the Commission at the draft stage, the                Directive;
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant
      to Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                  2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the
      provision of information in the field of technical               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
      standards and regulations, as amended by Council                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 1989 , p . 33 .
      Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988.
2 . The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(M OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
( 2 ) OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 81 , 1988 , p . 75 .                                                               of 11 July 1996
                                                                       in Case C-445/93 : European Parliament v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, supported by the French
                                                                       Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland ( 1 )
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( 96/C 336/28 )
                     of 19 September 1996
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       in Case C-236/95 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( x )                    In Case C-445/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : J. Schoo
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure         and J. L. Rufas Quintana ) v. Commission of the European
to implement Directive 89/665/EEC within the prescribed                Communities ( Agents : J.-L . Dewost, D. Sorasio and P. van
period — Review procedures relating to public supply and              Nuffel ), supported by the French Republic ( Agents : J. F.
                    public works contracts)                            Dobelle, C. de Salins and C. Chavance ) and the United
                            ( 96/C 336/27)                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: J. E.
                                                                       Collins, assisted by The Right Honourable the Lord Rodger
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                         of Earlsferry, S. Richards and E. Sharpston ) — application
                                                                       for a declaration that the Commission has failed, contrary to
                                                                      the Treaty, to submit the necessary proposals for the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          establishment of freedom of movement for persons within
           published in the European Court Reports)                   the internal market, pursuant to Article 7a of the EC Treaty
                                                                      — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
In Case C-236/95 : Commission of the European                         President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic                and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Republic ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Dimitra              Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
Tsagkaraki ) — application for a declaration that by not              Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet
adopting or not notifying to the Commission within the                 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative            Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 1996, the
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive           operative part of which is as follows :
89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating           1 . There is no need to give a decision on the
to the application of review procedures to the award of                      application.
public supply and public works contracts (2 ), the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),               2 . The parties, including the interveners, are ordered to
                                                                             bear their own costs .
composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,                            (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 ( not for publication in the Court
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for                   Reports ).
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 ,
in which it:


title: Case F-81/09: Action brought on 28 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/44

         Action brought on 28 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-81/09)
   2009/C 312/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting in part the applicant’s request for annulment of the Commission’s decision concerning the calculation of the default interest payable in respect of the invalidity allowance awarded to him between June 2005 and April 2008.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the defendant rejected in part the request of 8 September 2008, that is to say, annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the Commission calculated and paid to the applicant default interest to which he was entitled in respect of each of the parts of the monthly amounts of the invalidity allowance awarded to him for the period from June 2005 to April 2008, which were paid to him in a single payment on 29 May 2009, with a value date of 28 May 2008, instead of at the end of each month of the period in question, being an amount less than would have been calculated and paid if the criteria set out in the request of 8 September 2008 had been applied, namely if: (a) 29 May 2008 had been regarded as the dies ad quem; (b) the first day of the month following that in which each of the parts of the monthly amounts in question should have been paid to the applicant had been regarded as the dies a quo; (c) the rate of interest applied had been 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation;

               —

               annul those parts of the memorandum of 16 December 2008 which are unfavourable to the applicant, that is to say, those parts in which the Commission rejected in part the request of 8 September 2008, namely those parts in which the EC calculated and paid less interest than would have been calculated and paid if the criteria set out in the request of 8 September 2008 had been applied;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the difference between the amount of interest calculated by applying the criteria set out in the request of 8 September 2008 and the amount of interest actually paid, if necessary and appropriate by not applying to this dispute, pursuant to Article 241 EC (formerly Article 184), those parts of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities concerning the criteria for determining the amount and rate of interest to be paid on a debt of the EC to a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply and the capitalisation of interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from 29 May 2008 until actual payment, on the difference in the interest, at a rate of greater than EUR 1, if necessary and appropriate by not applying to this dispute, pursuant to Article 241 EC (formerly Article 184), those parts of the Financial Regulation concerning the criteria for determining the amount and rate of interest to be paid on a debt of the EC to a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply and the capitalisation of interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the complaint of 18 February 2009 and the memorandum of 29 May 2009 were rejected.


title: Case C-272/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption of imported goods which are intended to be placed under warehousing arrangements other than customs — Obligation to physically place the goods in the warehouse — Non-compliance — Obligation to pay VAT notwithstanding the fact that it has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
   (Case C-272/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption of imported goods which are intended to be placed under warehousing arrangements other than customs - Obligation to physically place the goods in the warehouse - Non-compliance - Obligation to pay VAT notwithstanding the fact that it has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism))
   2014/C 315/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria regionale per la Toscana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Equoland Soc. coop. arl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 16(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/18/EC of 14 February 2006, in the version resulting from Article 28c of the Sixth Directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes the grant of an exemption from the payment of the value added tax on importation provided for by that legislation subject to the condition that goods which are imported and destined for a tax warehouse for the purposes of value added tax be physically placed in that warehouse;

               2.

               Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/18, must be interpreted, in accordance with the principle of neutrality of value added tax, as precluding national legislation under which a Member State requires the payment of value added tax on importation even though that tax has been settled already under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and entry in the sales and purchases register of the taxable person.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Cases T-112/14 to T-116/14 and T-119/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Molinos Río de la Plata and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Trade association — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Molinos Río de la Plata and Others v Council
   (Cases T-112/14 to T-116/14 and T-119/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Trade association - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Molinos Río de la Plata SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (Case T-112/14), Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos SACIFI y A (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) (Case T-113/14), Vicentin SAIC (Avellaneda, Argentina) (Case T-114/14), Aceitera General Deheza SA (General Deheza, Argentina) (Case T-115/14), Bunge Argentina SA (Buenos Aires) (Case T-116/14), Cámara Argentina de Biocombustibles (Carbio) (Buenos Aires) (Case T-119/14) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, in Case T-119/14, for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), and, in Cases T-112/14 and T-116/14, for annulment of that regulation in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicants in those cases.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-112/14, T-113/14, T-114/14, T-115/14, T-116/14 and T-119/14 for the purposes of the decision closing the proceedings;

               2.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern Molinos Río de la Plata SA, Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos SAFICI y A, Vicentin SAIC, Aceitera General Deheza SA and Bunge Argentina SA;

               3.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-119/14 as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in Cases T-112/14 to T-116/14 and also to pay the costs incurred by Molinos Río de la Plata in Case T-112/14, by Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos in Case T-113/14, by Vincentin in Case T-114/14, by Aceitera General Deheza in Case T-115/14 and by Bunge Argentina in Case T-116/14;

               5.

               Orders Cámara Argentina de Biocombustibles (Carbio) and the Council to bear their own costs in Case T-119/14;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1997 in Case T-122/96: Federazione Nazionale del Commercio Oleario (Federolio) v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Olive oil - Consumption aid - Regulation (EC) No 887/96 - Action for annulment - Association of traders - Inadmissibility)

text:
 C 387/20                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 12 . 97
 annulment of Commission Decision PT-C(95)543 of                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 12 December 1995 reducing financial assistance — the                                          of 30 September 1997
 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;             in Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
 B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has            Oleario ( Federolio ) v. Commission of the European
given a judgment on 7 November 1997, in which it:                                                  Communities (')
                                                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the markets —
 1 . dismisses the action;                                             Olive oil — Consumption aid — Regulation (EC)
                                                                       No 887/96 — Action for annulment — Association of
                                                                                traders — Inadmissibility)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the                                             ( 97/C 387/38 )
     costs of the proceedings on the application for interim
     measures .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(<) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-122/96 : Federazione Nazionale del Commercio
                                                                       Oleario ( Federolio ), established in Rome, represented by
                                                                       Livia Magrone Furlotti, of the Rome Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
                                                                       Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Paolo
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Ziotti ) — application for partial annulment of
                       of 30 September 1997                            Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 887/96 of 15 May 1996,
                                                                       amending Regulation ( EEC) No 2677/85 laying down
in Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação                       implementing rules in respect of the system of
Profissional Lda ( INEF ) v. Commission of the European                consumption aid for olive oil ( OJ L 119 , 16 . 5 . 1996 , p. 16
                          Communities (')                              and OJ L 254, 25 . 9 . 1985 , p. 5 , respectively ) — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
(European Social Fund — Reduction of financial                         García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
assistance — Actions for annulment of measures — Time
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September
                     limits — Inadmissibility)                         1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                           ( 97/ C 387/37 )
                                                                       1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-151/95 : Instituto Europeu de Formação
                                                                       (') OJ C 370 , 7 . 12 . 1996 .
Profissional Lda ( INEF ), established at Oporto ( Portugal ),
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms and,
subsequently, Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson )              Action brought on 2 October 1997 by Associazione
— application for annulment of the Commission 's                      G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina against Commission of the
decision of 2 December 1991 reducing the aid granted by                                       European Communities
the European Social Fund in case 991005 PI in favour of
a vocational training programme operated in Portugal by                                           ( Case T-263/97 )
the applicant — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                                ( 97/C 387/39 )
Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 30 September 1997, the operative part                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
of which is as follows :
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
1 . the application is dismissed;                                      the European Communities on 2 October 1997 by
                                                                       Associazione G.A.L. Penisola Sorrentina, represented by
2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                       Gian Luca Lemmo and Vincenzo Mormile , of the Naples
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Naples at 31 Via del
                                                                       Parco Marguerita .
(') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should annul
                                                                       Commission Decision C(97) 1261 of 15 May 1997.


title: Case C-246/99: Action brought on 1 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
28.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/19
     If so: May Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 in                 Action brought on 1 July 1999 by the Commission of the
     conjunction with Annex VII (implementation of Article                 European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
     14c(b)) be applied by analogy to the situation in this case
     of the pursuit of two different self-employed activities
     (hotelier in Austria and farmer in Germany)?                                                  (Case C-246/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/40)
( 1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1971, p. 416.
(2) OJ L 28 of 30.1.1997, p. 1.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
(3) OJ L 38 of 12.2.1999, p. 1.                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1
                                                                           July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Hans Christian Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service,
                                                                           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1. Declare that, by maintaining Paragraphs 2(1) and 1(2) of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                        Decree No 124 of 27 February 1989 on packaging for
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 18 June 1999 in the                           beer and soft drinks, as most recently amended by Decree
case of FILA Sport S.p.A. v Beijing Metals & Minerals                          No 300 of 30 April 1997, providing that drinks covered
                      Import & Export Corp.                                    by the Decree may be marketed only in returnable
                                                                               packaging, and by maintaining Paragraph 3 of that Decree,
                                                                               which provides that the packaging of imported drinks may
                                                                               not be made of metal, the Kingdom of Denmark, further
                           (Case C-243/99)                                     to Article 226 EC (ex Article 169), has failed to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations under European Parliament and Council
                                                                               Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging
                           (1999/C 246/39)                                     and packaging waste, particularly Article 18, in conjunc-
                                                                               tion with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, and Articles 28 and
                                                                               30 EC (ex Articles 30 and 36);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 June 1999 from
the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)                  2. Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of these
(Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June                 proceedings.
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of FILA Sport S.p.A.
v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. on the
following question:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                      — Directive 92/64/EC provides that Member States, on the
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,                    one hand, cannot impede the placing on the market of
                                                                               their territory of packaging which satisfies the rules of the
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                               Directive (Article 18) and, on the other, may allow
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
                                                                               packaging to be placed on the market only if it complies
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European                    with the essential requirements of the Directive (Article
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a                    9(1)). The Directive thus establishes full harmonisation of
                                                                               Member States’ national rules on packaging and packaging
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
                                                                               waste.
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
                                                                               The Directive does not contain provisions authorising
                                                                               Member States to lay down more stringent rules. It follows
                                                                               that Member States cannot maintain in force national
                                                                               requirements which diverge from those laid down in the
(1) OJ 1994 L 341 of 30.12.1994, p. 8.                                         Directive. Since the Directive establishes full harmonisation
                                                                               of the rules on packaging, inter alia with a view to
                                                                               preventing competition from being distorted, a Member
                                                                               State cannot apply rules on the packaging to be used for
                                                                               domestic drinks which differ from those which may be
                                                                               applied to packaging for imported drinks.
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
   Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                systems for cans and non-returnable packaging, along
   Article 95(4) EC) enables a Member State to maintain                   with, if appropriate, labelling and environmental taxes, can
   national rules if the Member State deems this necessary in             secure the same or approximately identical environmental
   order, for example, to protect the environment. When                   advantages as a ban. Lifting the ban would at the same
   adopting the packaging Directive, the Commission did not               time ensure that foreign manufacturers can market their
   receive notification of any national measures which a                  products in, for example, aluminium cans and thereby
   Member State wished to maintain. Within the area harmon-               utilise the environmental advantages associated with trans-
   ised by the Directive, therefore, Member States can no                 port of metal cans over long distances compared with
   longer rely on Article 301EC (ex Article 36) or on interests           transport of other types of packaging.
   requiring mandatory protection as a basis for maintaining
   or introducing more stringent rules.
                                                                      (1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
   Metal cans made of steel and aluminium satisfy, in the
   Commission’s view, the essential requirements set out in
   Annex II to the Directive. For instance, metal cans satisfy
   the requirements as to manufacturing and composition
   laid down in Annex II(1). Metal cans can also be
   recovered or recycled. It follows from Annex II(3)(a) that
   packaging must be manufactured in such a way as to
   enable ‘the recycling of a certain percentage by weight
   of the materials used’. A very significant portion of the
   material in metal cans can be recycled or reused. The
   Danish rules on packaging and the attitude shown by
   the Danish Government also appear to imply an
   acceptance that metal cans, for instance, satisfy the
   essential requirements. Metal cans are used extensively in
   Denmark, as in other Member States, for food and drink             Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by Pescados Congelados
   products, such as fruit juice, ice tea and chocolate milk.         Jogamar SL against the order delivered on 30 April 1999
   Denmark also allows a considerable quantity of canned              by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
   beer to be exported to other Member States for purposes            the European Communities in Case T-311/97 between
   of consumption. If it is assumed, as the Danish                    Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL and Commission of the
   Government submits, that metal cans do not satisfy the                                 European Communities
   essential requirements, such packaging will, according to
   Article 9(1) of the Directive, not be usable in Denmark
   or for the export of drinks to other Member States.                                       (Case C-249/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/41)
— If, as the Danish Government claims, the Directive does
   not at present exhaustively harmonise the rules governing          An appeal against the order delivered on 30 April 1999 by the
   packaging, the legality of the Danish measures must, in the        Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
   Commission’s view, also be assessed on the basis of Article        Communities in Case T-311/97 between Pescados Congelados
   28 EC (ex Article 30). The Danish measures on packaging            Jogamar SL and the Commission of the European Communities
   have the effect that beer and carbonated drinks cannot be          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
   marketed in the packaging which is lawfully used in the            Communities on 2 July 1999 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar
   Member State in which the drinks are manufactured. The             SL, represented by Manuel de Cristóbal López, of the Madrid
   prohibition on imports of beer and carbonated drinks in            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
   metal cans therefore constitutes a barrier to trace contrary       Beaumanoir, 48 Rue de Bragance, L-1255 Luxembourg.
   to Article 28 EC (ex Article 30). The onus is on the Danish
   Government to demonstrate that measures constituting a
   barrier to trace contrary to the Treaty are necessary in
   order to protect the environment and that they comply              The appellant claims that the Court should:
   with the principle of proportionality, that is to say, the
   prohibition is no wider than is necessary to attain a lawful       — quash the order of the Court of First Instance appealed
   objective: the Danish Government has failed to discharge               against;
   that burden of proof. Extensive measures for environmen-
   tal protection, such as a total ban on the use of metal cans
   and non-returnable packaging for beer and carbonated               — declare admissible the action for failure to act and, if it
   drinks, even though the packaging is lawfully used in all              should deem fit, consider the merits of the case or, failing
   other Member States, calls for a reasonably unambiguous                that, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so
   and certain scientific basis. The life cycle analyses which            that it may adjudicate on the merits of the case; and
   the Danish authorities have had compiled cannot be
   regarded as constituting such a basis. A complete ban on
   the use of certain types of packaging also runs counter to         — in any event, uphold all the claims of the applicant at first
   the principle of proportionality. Use of return and deposit            instance.


title: Case C-284/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Slovak Republic v Achmea BV

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Slovak Republic v Achmea BV
   (Case C-284/16)
   (2016/C 296/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slovak Republic

      Defendant: Achmea BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 344 TFEU preclude the application of a provision in a bilateral investment protection agreement between Member States of the European Union (a so-called BIT internal to the European Union) under which an investor of a contracting State, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other contracting State, may bring proceedings against the latter State before an arbitration tribunal, where the investment protection agreement was concluded before one of the contracting States acceded to the European Union but the arbitration proceedings are not to be brought until after that date?
               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

               2.

               Does Article 267 TFEU preclude the application of such a provision?
               If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the negative:

               3.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU preclude the application of such a provision under the circumstances described in Question 1?


title: Case C-320/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/18

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-320/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 96/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-11/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air France v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 6 and 7 — Connecting flight(s) — Delay in arrival at the final destination — Delay equal to or in excess of three hours — A passenger’s right to compensation)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Air France v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts
   (Case C-11/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 6 and 7 - Connecting flight(s) - Delay in arrival at the final destination - Delay equal to or in excess of three hours - A passenger’s right to compensation)
   2013/C 114/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Air France

      Defendants: Heinz-Gerke Folkerts, Luz-Tereza Folkerts

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Intercontinental flight consisting of several stages — Situation in which the flight arrives at the final destination ten hours late, although departure was delayed for a period within the limits set out in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Possible right to compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case T-478/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Mutualidad General de la Abogacía, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija v SRB

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/18

         Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Mutualidad General de la Abogacía, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija v SRB
   (Case T-478/17)
   (2017/C 318/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Mutualidad General de la Abogacía, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija (Madrid, Spain) and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos, Mutualidad de Previsión Social a prima fija (Madrid) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Single Resolution Board Decision of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present action established a resolution procedure applicable to the Banco Popular Español.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision and the consequent infringement of the rights to good administration and to an effective remedy (Articles 41(2)(b) and (c) and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defence (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

                           —

                           It is claimed in this respect that the resolution procedure set out in Articles 18, 24(2)(a) and 27 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) infringes the rights of defence, in that it does not allow those concerned by that resolution to have even the slightest involvement in the procedure. Articles 32, 38 and 43 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (2) according to the applicants, are tainted by the same illegality as they make no provision whatever for the parties concerned to be heard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property (Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and of the principle of freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

                           —

                           It is claimed in this respect that Articles 21, 22, 24 and 27 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as Articles 38 and 63 of Directive 2014/59/EU, infringe the right to property and the principle of the right to conduct a business, in that they allow the sale of shares in a financial entity without allowing arguments from shareholders or requiring their consent, and confer on the resolution authorities powers to reduce the capital to zero by cancelling the shares, without a hearing or agreement of the shareholders or of the competent organs of the company.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective legal remedy, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by infringing the principle of equality of arms and consequently, the right to a fair trial.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and of Article 32 of Directive 2014/59/EU by reason of the fact that the Single Resolution Board committed a manifest error in its assessment of the facts by not complying with the conditions for the adoption of a resolution action laid down in the provisions mentioned.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of prudential banking (precautionary principle) because of the existence of alternative means to those envisaged in the contested decision, including those of early intervention, which precluded the adoption of the resolution action.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in relation to the right to property.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in that the independent expert’s valuation cannot be regarded as ‘fair, prudent and realistic’.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and of Article 39(2)(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Directive 2014/59/EU by the defendant in that the rules governing the procedure for the sale of the entity set during the extended executive session of 3 June 2017 were not transparent, a potential purchaser (El Banco de Santander) was favoured and the sale price was not as high as it could have been.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).


title: Joined Cases C-210/14 to C-214/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Tomassi (C-210/14), Massimiliano Di Adamo (C-211/14), Andrea De Ciantis (C-212/14), Romina Biolzi (C-213/14), Giuseppe Proia (C-214/14) (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 270/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Tomassi (C-210/14), Massimiliano Di Adamo (C-211/14), Andrea De Ciantis (C-212/14), Romina Biolzi (C-213/14), Giuseppe Proia (C-214/14)
   (Joined Cases C-210/14 to C-214/14) (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 270/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Criminal proceedings against

   Daniela Tomassi (C-210/14), Massimiliano Di Adamo (C-211/14), Andrea De Ciantis (C-212/14), Romina Biolzi (C-213/14), Giuseppe Proia (C-214/14)

      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 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case C-639/13: Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/23

         Action brought on 3 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-639/13)
   2014/C 45/39
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to goods intended to provide fire protection, mentioned in Annex 3 to the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the Commission submits that the Republic of Poland applies a reduced rate of VAT to goods which are not mentioned in Annex III to the directive. Those goods, however, require to be taxed at the standard rate as they cannot come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 98(2) of the directive. In addition, the argument set out by Poland is related exclusively to economic policy and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing legal justification for breaching the provisions of the directive. In the Commission’s view, there can therefore be no doubt that the provisions of Polish law have not been adapted to the requirements of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 July 1997 in Case T-28/96: Doreen Chew v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Representation - Staff Committee - Elections - List of staff entitled to vote)

text:
No C 252/26           \ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen, 21 Rue
de Nassau, against Commission of the European                          (') OJ No C 133 , 4. 5 . 1996 .
Communities (Agent: Etiene Lasnet) — application under
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant in connection with a programme
financed by the European Development Fund — the Court
of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                          of 9 July 1997
given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it:
                                                                      in Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd and Others
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities (')
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the market in
                                                                       the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector — Variable slaughter
                                                                      premium for sheep — Conditions for reimbursement of
2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            clawback — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of
                                                                                proportionality)
0 ) OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/57 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas ( Ireland ) Ltd, established
                                                                      in Dublin, Sharpbond Trading Ltd, established in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Stratford-upon-Avon (United Kingdom), J. & S. A. Wood
                           of 2 July 1997                             ( Livestock Exports ), Ltd, established in Redditch (United
                                                                      Kingdom ), J. & S. A. Wood, established in Redditch,
in Case T-28/96: Doreen Chew v. Commission of the                     Lesley Dorothy Joan Mills, residing in Framlingham
                  European Communities (')                            ( United Kingdom), Live Sheep Traders Ltd, established in
                                                                      Framlingham, Livestock Sales Transport Ltd, established
(Officials — Representation — Staff Committee —                       in Framlingham, Peter Ziokowski, residing in Folkestone
          Elections — List of staff entitled to vote)                 ( United Kingdom), Brigstock Farms Ltd, established
                           ( 97/C 252/56 )                            in London, K. A. & S. B. M. Feakins, established
                                                                      in Llancloudy (United Kingdom ), Deaconvale Ltd,
                                                                      established in Gloucester ( United Kingdom), represented
                                                                      by Conor Quigley, Barrister, of the Bar of England and
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Wales, instructed by A. M. Burstow, Solicitor, Crawley,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Jean-Marie Bauler, 42 Grand-Rue, against
In Case T-28/96 : Doreen Chew, a member of the local                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                  Thomas Van Rijn, Christopher Docksey and Philippa
residing at Suva ( Fiji ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of          Watson), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                      and Northern Ireland ( Agents : J. E. Collins and Gerald
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Barling) — application for the annulment of Article 2 of
30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1922/92 of 13 July
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                       1992 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84 laying
application, first, for annulment of the result of the                down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter
elections held to provide for representation of staff serving         premium for sheep, repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /
outside the Community, announced by the Electoral                     80 and determining the conditions for the reimbursement
Committee on 13 February 1995 , in so far as it named the             of the clawback following the judgment of the Court of
regional representative elected by the local staff                    Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No
constituency for geographical area No 3 and, second, for              L 195 , 14. 7. 1992, p. 10 ) — the Court of First Instance
an order requiring the Commission to pay one Belgian                  ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P.
franc as compensation for the non-material damage                     Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,                    9 July 1997, in which it:
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 July 1997, in which it:                                 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
1 . dismisses the action;                                                  costs of the Commission;


title: Case T-383/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/42

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament
   (Case T-383/06 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a decision - No need to adjudicate)
   (2007/C 95/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braîne-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures seeking, in substance, suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament dated 1 December 2006 accepting the tender submitted by Mostra and rejecting the applicant's tender in the context of call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003 and also of the implementation of any contract entered into with Mostra, pending the decision of the Court in the main action.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-369/00: Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Département du Loiret v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Present-day value of the aid — Compound interest — Statement of reasons)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/30

         Judgment of the Tribunal of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Département du Loiret v Commission
   (Case T-369/00) (1)

   (State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Present-day value of the aid - Compound interest - Statement of reasons)
   (2007/C 96/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Flett, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Scott SA (Saint-Cloud (France), (represented by: Sir Jeremy Lever QC, J. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers and R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors)
   Re:
   Partial annulument of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark in so far as it concerns the aid granted in the form of a preferential price for the property referred to in Article 1;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and by Scott SA.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.


title: Case C-444/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk — Północ w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland) lodged on 27 September 2007 — MG Probud Gdynia Sp. z o.o. v Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk — Północ w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland) lodged on 27 September 2007 — MG Probud Gdynia Sp. z o.o. v Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken
   (Case C-444/07)
   (2007/C 283/41)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk — Północ w Gdańsku (Poland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MG Probud Gdynia Sp. z o.o., Gdynia

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken
   Questions referred

               1

               In the light of Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1), that is to say, in the light of the rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which insolvency proceedings are opened, the law applicable to those proceedings and the conditions governing, and the effects of recognition of, those proceedings, do the public administrative authorities of a Member State have the power to seize funds held in the bank account of an economic subject following a declaration of its insolvency made in another EU Member State (application of the so-called seizure of assets), thereby contravening the national legal rules of the Member State which opened such proceedings (Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000), where the conditions for the application of the provisions of Articles 5 and 10 of that regulation do not exist?

               2

               In the light of Article 25(1) et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, may the administrative authorities of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have not been opened and which must recognise the insolvency proceedings pursuant to Article 16 of that regulation refuse, on the basis of domestic legal rules, to recognise decisions made by the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings relating to the conduct and closure of insolvency proceedings pursuant to Articles 31 to 51 of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


title: Case C-233/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/44/EC — Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector — Procedural rules and evaluation criteria)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-233/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/44/EC - Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector - Procedural rules and evaluation criteria)
   2011/C 55/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhis and H. te Winkel, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.07.2010.


title: Case T-89/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Structural funds — Financial assistance — M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-89/10) (1)

   (Structural funds - Financial assistance - M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó - VAT - Non-eligible expenditure)
   2012/C 343/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented: initially by J. Fazekas, K. Szíjjártó and M.Z. Fehér, then by M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, V. Bottka and A. Steiblytė, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 14 December 2009 relating to the major project ‘M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó’, forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for European Union structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund under the ‘Convergence’ objective (CCI 2008HU161PR016)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-120/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council
   (Case T-120/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Ciliandra Perkasa (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as it concerns PT Ciliandra Perkasa;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by PT Ciliandra Perkasa;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case F-118/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/70

      Action brought on 11 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-118/11)
      (2012/C 25/137)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission refusing to adopt a decision on the occupational origins of the applicant’s illness

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission, rejecting — howsoever and whether in whole or in part — the claims set out in the application of 30 June 2011, sent to the Commission in the person of its legal representative pro tempore and to the appointing authority of the Commission;

                  —

                  find that the Commission has abstained from adopting a finding, for the purposes of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the occupational origins of the condition on account of which the applicant’s retirement, provided for under the decision of 30 May 2005, was decided, or at the least has abstained from undertaking a review of the related finding, which — a matter which is uncertain — was adopted by the Commission when the decision of 30 May 2005 was issued;

                  —

                  order the Commission to transfer to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 250, which, if and in so far as it is not paid to the applicant, will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from tomorrow and until the day on which payment of that sum takes place;

                  —

                  order the Commission to transfer to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 per day for each additional day which, with effect from tomorrow, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 180th day after 1 July 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 50 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

                  —

                  order the Commission to transfer to the applicant the sum of EUR 60 per day for each additional day which, from the 181st day after 1 July 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 270th day after 1 July 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 60 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

                  —

                  order the Commission to transfer to the applicant the sum of EUR 75 per day for each additional day which, from the 271st day after 1 July 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 360th day after 1 July 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 75 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

                  —

                  order the Commission to transfer to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 per day for each additional day which, from the 361st day after 1 July 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, ad infinitum, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 100 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 February 1996 in Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
30 . 3 . 96          | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 15
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including              Hoskins, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
      those incurred in the procedure for interim measures.            address for service at Brick Court Chambers, 8 Avenue de la
                                                                       Joyeuse Entree, Brussels, against Council of the European
(M OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                        Union ( Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ) and
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Frank
                                                                       Benyon and Lucio Gussetti ) — application for suspension of
                                                                       the operation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
                                                                       4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
                                                                       Community and the introduction into the Community of
                                                                       pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               originating in countries which catch them by means of
                      of 15 February 1996                              leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
                                                                       international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
in Case T-125/95 : Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the
                                                                       p. 1 ) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          order on 12 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as
(Official — Competition — Decision of the selection board              follows :
that a candidate has failed the oral test — Scope of the
                  obligation to state reasons)
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                             ( 96/C 95/29 )
                                                                       2.   costs are reserved.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-125/95 , Hassan Belhanbel, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing at Namur ( Belgium ), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               Action brought on 21 December 1995 by 'T' against the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                 European Parliament
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                                           Case T-233/95 )
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the                                     ( 96/C 95/31 )
decision of the selection board in competition COM/B/765
awarding the applicant, in the oral test, a lower mark than
the minimum required and refusing to enter his name on the                             (Language of the case: Greek)
reserve list — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and              An action against the European Parliament was brought
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment           before the Court of First Instance on 21 December 1995 by
on 15 February 1996, in which it:                                      'T', represented by Harisios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . dismisses the action;                                              Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( ! ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                    — annul the staff report on the applicant for the period
                                                                           1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 , in particular heading
                                                                           10 . 1 ,
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                           Parliament of 19 September 1995 confirming the above
                                                                           staff report,
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                      of 12 February 1996
in Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union and Commission of the European
                             Communities
                                                                       The applicant, an official of the Parliament in Grade A 5
                             ( 96/C 95/30 )                            serving in the Legal Service, states that, for the purpose of
                                                                       promoting another candidate, the detailed part of his staff
                                                                       report for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 was
               (Language of the case: English)                         decided in advance and did not correspond to reality . In
                                                                       support of that claim he relies on the lack of consistency
In Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd, established in                  between the detailed report and the general assessment
London, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                    contained in the report. In his view the huge improvement


title: Case C-93/04: Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-93/04)
   (2004/C 94/61)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/89/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 30 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 31 October 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5.


title: Case C-211/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Roma — Italy) — Martini SpA v Ministero delle Attività Produttive (Agriculture — System of import licences — Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 — Article 35(4)(c) — Securities lodged at the time of application for the issue of the licences — Import licence — Late submission of proof of its use — Penalty — Calculation of the amount forfeited — Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 — Tariff quotas)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Roma — Italy) — Martini SpA v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   (Case C-211/12) (1)

   (Agriculture - System of import licences - Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 - Article 35(4)(c) - Securities lodged at the time of application for the issue of the licences - Import licence - Late submission of proof of its use - Penalty - Calculation of the amount forfeited - Regulation (EC) No 958/2003 - Tariff quotas)
   2013/C 260/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di Appello di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Martini SpA

      Respondent: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Corte di Appello di Roma — Interpretation of Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 2000 L 152, p. 1) — Securities lodged at the time of application for the issue of the import licences — Determination of the amount to be forfeited in respect of quantities for which proof concerning the export licence with advance fixing of the refund was not provided within the time-limit specified

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 325/2003 of 20 February 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of the security referred to by that provision is not only to guarantee that the obligation to import the product concerned will be fulfilled but also to ensure that proof of the use of the licence will be submitted within a certain period.

               2.

               Article 35(4)(c) of Regulation No 1291/2000, as amended by Regulation No 325/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where proof that a product has been correctly imported has been submitted late, the amount to be forfeited, in respect of the quantities for which proof has not been provided within the time-limit set under Article 35(4)(a) of that regulation, must be calculated on the basis of a level of security which was actually applied at the time when the application for the issue of the licence or licences relating to that importation was made. For the purposes of such an interpretation, it is irrelevant that the security was lodged on the basis of a rate that was higher than that applicable to other imports of the same type of product as the product imported, given that the latter was exempted from the payment of import duties.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.