title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 1999 in Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis de Roquefort and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
18.9.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 265/13
initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             Vicente, Saturnino Durán Vidal, Alfredo Escribano Martı́nez,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                       Pablo Fernández Ruiz, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Luis Guembe
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European                         Casi, Ana Luisa Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Géraldine O’Shea,
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence                    Antonio Oliva Español, Pablo Pardo Ortiz, Manuel Parejo
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annulment of the                        Pagador, Ernesto Pérez Carbonell, Dolores Rodrı́guez Pérez,
decision not to promote the applicant to grade B 3 in the                      Enrique Rojas De Montis, Alfonso Ruiz De Azoa Castano and
1997 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance                        Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet are annulled inasmuch as they
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and                       refuse them, in respect of the period prior to that date, financial
R. Garcı́a Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-                  assistance for the legal fees occasioned by the proceedings brought
trator, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 27 April 1999,                before Spanish courts for the purpose of securing the transfer to
in which it:                                                                   the Community scheme of their retirement pension rights acquired
                                                                               in Spain;
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2. For the rest, the applications in Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98
2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs            are dismissed.
     incurred by the applicant up until the date of receipt by him of
     the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant is ordered to     3. The Commission shall pay two thirds of the costs of the applicants
     bear the costs incurred by him thereafter.                                in Case T-114/98. For the rest, each party shall bear its own
                                                                               costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 May 1999
                            of 1 June 1999
                                                                           in Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs
in Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́-                     Réunis de Roquefort and Others v Commission of the
guez Pérez and Others and José Maria Olivares Ramos and                                        European Communities (1)
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Case not proceeding to judgment)
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — National proceed-
            ings — Request for financial assistance)                                                 (1999/C 265/26)
                           (1999/C 265/25)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis
                    (Language of the cases: Spanish)                       de Roquefort, established at Roquefort-sur-Soulzon (France),
                                                                           Société Fromagère Corse, established at Bastia (France), Société
In Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́guez                  pour la Valorisation du Lait de Brebis du Grand Sud-Ouest
Pérez and 23 others and José Marı́a Olivares Ramos and 55                  (Valbreso). established at La Canourgue (France), Compagnie
others, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                  des Fromages, established at Viré (France), Fromager du Causse,
Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars, with an                established at Roquefort (France), Alliance Agro Alimentaire,
address for service at 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels,                    established in Toulouse (France), and Confédération Générale
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis et des Industriels de
Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier) — application                Roquefort, established at Millau (France), represented by
for annulment on the Commission decisions refusing to grant                F. Ancel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
the applicants financial assistance for the transfer to the                Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de
Community pension scheme of pension rights which they                      Bourbon, v Commission of the European Communities
acquired under the Spanish scheme, as provided for under                   (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid) supported
Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of          by Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos
the European Communities, or discontinuing that financial                  AEBE — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
assistance — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1999 on the registration of
composed of M. Jaeger President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                 geographical indications and designations of origin under the
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
has given a judgment on 1 June 1999, the operative part of                 No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns
which is as follows:                                                       registration of the name ‘feta’ as a protected designation of
                                                                           origin — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), com-
1. The decisions of 10 November 1997 addressed to Rafael Aguirre           posed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
     Unceta, Miguel Alay Marcos, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Soledad           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 May 1999, the
     Blanco Mangudo, Federica Burel Louberry, Fabriciano Corchete          operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 265/14                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.9.1999
1. There is no need to give a decision on the application.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The applicants and the Commission are to bear their own costs.                                 of 30 April 1999
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.                           in Case T-311/97, Pescados Congelados Jogamar, SL v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.                                                (Action for declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          In Case T-311/97, Pescados Congeloados Jogamar, SL, estab-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               lished in Las Palmas, Spain, represented by Manual de Cristóbal
                                                                          López, of the Madrid Bar with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Beaumanoir, 48 Rue de Bragance,
                       of 20 February 1997                                against the Commission of the European Communities (acting
                                                                          by Thomas van Rijn and Juan Guerra Fernández as Agents), an
in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG                      application for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                          failed to intervene in pursuance of its powers in regard to
                                ties (1)                                  fishing, and particularly its powers in the context of the
                                                                          cooperation agreement entered into by the European Com-
                                                                          munity and the Kingdom of Morocco in that field, when the
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
                                                                          Moroccan authorities arrested the ship Albor Uno, the Court
                                                                          (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President and
                          (1999/C 265/27)                                 R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 30 April 1999 the operative part of which
                                                                          states as follows:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG,                     2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich, Summer
& Co. KG, established at Heimenkirch (Germany) Milchwerk
Crailsheim eG, established at Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Geislingen eG, established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany),
Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Bad Aibling (Germany) and Zentral-Molkerei
Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany). represented
by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European Communi-                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ties (Agents: J.L. Buhigues and U. Wölker) — application for
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96                                            of 29 April 1999
of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in               in case T-120/98: Alce Srl v Commission of the European
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                                         Communities (1)
L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns the registration of feta as a
protected designation of origin — the Court of Firs Instance                                       (Inadmissibility)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
J. Azizi and M Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order                                   (1999/C 265/29)
on 20 February 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-141/96 Bergpracht Milchwerk                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
     Communities in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on       In Case T-120/98: Alce Srl, established in Novara, Italy,
     the application for annulment;                                       represented by Celestino Corica, of the Novara Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco
2. The costs are reserved.                                                Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1160/98 of
(1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.                                                2 June 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods
                                                                          inthe Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 160, p. 20) —
                                                                          the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          M. Jagaer, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,


title: Case C-262/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (First Chamber) by judgment of that court of 30 June 1999 in the case of P. Louloudakis against the Greek State

text:
30.10.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 314/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Trimeles Diikiti-              c) Is it permissible for the administrative measures as a whole
ko Protodikio Irakliou (First Chamber) by judgment of                        — including those arising from the charge of smuggling
that court of 30 June 1999 in the case of P. Louloudakis                     — which are decided on as appropriate in the field of
                    against the Greek State                                  customs contraventions by Member State B which is
                                                                             competent in that regard (in view of the absence of
                         (Case C-262/99)                                     harmonisation of national laws) to lead to penalties which
                                                                             amount to many (ten) times the original purchase price of
                         (1999/C 314/01)                                     the article in Member State A, without impeding the free
                                                                             movement of goods and persons?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the First Chamber of                     If the answer is in the negative, do criteria exist as to the
the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Administrative                   limits of what is strictly necessary in order to achieve the
Court of First Instance, Heraklion (Three Judges)) of 30 June                objectives pursued?
1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1999, for a              d) Does Directive 83/182/EEC or another provision give rise
preliminary ruling in the case of P. Louloudakis against the                 to an obligation on the Member States to take into account,
Greek State on the following questions:                                      when imposing administrative penalties in cases with
                                                                             which that directive is concerned, the good faith of the
a) Is the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council                     persons concerned and the absence of fraudulent intent
    Directive 83/182/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 on tax exemp-                  (for example ignorance)?
    tions within the Community for certain means of transport
    temporarily imported into one Member State from another
    to be interpreted as meaning that the normal residence of            (1) OJ No L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 59.
    a national of State A is in State A, where he successfully
    carries on business for many years both as an architect and
    in commerce through a limited partnership, retains a
    residence and spends most of his working time, or is in
    State B, of which he is also a national and where,
    simultaneously, he starts up an independent business with            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
    a similar or at least related object, leases a house and             of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting as a judicial body, by
    begins to spend part of his time, while also complying               orders of that court of 27 April and 26 May 1999, in the
    with his fiscal obligations, assisted by his wife who                cases of (1) Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale
    participates in all the above activities in both State A and         di Costruzioni v ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade
    State B and takes shares in those businesses?                        and Società Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua and (2) Impresa
                                                                         Ing. Mantovani SpA v ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le
    Apart from the abovementioned provision, do other                                                  Strade
    criteria exist on the basis of which, in cases where it is
    difficult to determine normal residence, it is possible for                          (Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99)
    that determination to be made?
                                                                                (1999/C 314/02)
b) In the case of possession or use of private vehicles by a
    person not entitled to a temporary exemption, which under            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    national law constitutes a simple customs contravention, is          European Communities by orders of Fourth Chamber of the
    it consistent with the Community principle of pro-                   Consiglio di Stato, sitting as a judicial body, of 27 April and
    portionality to impose, on the basis of the sole criterion of        26 May 1999, which were received at the Court Registry on
    the cubic capacity of the vehicle, a special administrative          2 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of (1)
    penalty, in particular a fine (such as the fine under                Impresa Lombardini SpA — Impresa Generale di Costruzioni
    Article 88(2)(f) of Law No 2127/1993) of an amount from              v ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade (National Highways
    GRD 1 000 000 to GRD 5 000 000 per vehicle, where                    Authority) and Società Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua and (2)
    that fine exceeds the current market value of the vehicle            Impresa Ing. Mantovani SpA v ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le
    having regard also to its age?                                       Strade, on the following questions:


title: Case T-507/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff — Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission
   (Case T-507/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff - Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))
   (2016/C 118/29)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicants: Vedran Vidmar (Zagreb, Croatia) and the 21 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment (represented by: D. Graf, lawyer), and Darko Graf (Zagreb) (represented initially by D Graf and subsequently by L. Duvnjak, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Commission while monitoring the fulfilment of accession commitments by the Republic of Croatia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-444/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council (Subsidies — Imports of coated fine paper originating in China — Methodology — Calculation of the advantage — Manifest error of assessment — Specificity — Depreciation period — Preferential tax treatments — Compensatory measures — Injury — Determination of the profit margin — Definition of the product concerned — Community industry — Causal link)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council
   (Case T-444/11) (1)

   ((Subsidies - Imports of coated fine paper originating in China - Methodology - Calculation of the advantage - Manifest error of assessment - Specificity - Depreciation period - Preferential tax treatments - Compensatory measures - Injury - Determination of the profit margin - Definition of the product concerned - Community industry - Causal link))
   2014/C 380/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China), and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch, A. Polcyn, lawyers, and by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and by S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Cepifine AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), Sappi Europe SA (Brussels), Burgo Group SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy), and Lecta SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 452/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-subsidy duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 18) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union, Cepifine AISBL, Sappi Europe SA, Burgo Group SpA and Lecta SA;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 1999 in Case C-225/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Public procurement procedures - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors)

text:
C 204/16                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                             of 19 May 1999
                                                                                of 20 May 1999
in Case C-225/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)                            in Case C-185/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom
to provide services — Public procurement procedures —                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
  Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors)                                    transpose Directive 92/101/EEC)
                            (1999/C 204/30)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/31)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-225/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen
Rispal-Bellanger and Philippe Lalliot) — application for a                  In Case C-185/98: Commission of the European Communities
declaration that, by not adopting all the measures necessary to             (Agent: Maria Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: Aikaterini
comply with Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February                      Samoni-Rantou and Nana Dafniou) — application for a
1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative                  declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative, by
provisions relating to the application of Community rules on                failing to communicate to the Commission, within the period
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,              prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L                 necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/101/EEC of
76, p. 14), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        23 November 1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the
under Articles 1(2), 2(1)(c) and 2(5) of that Directive, and                formation of public limited liability companies and the main-
under Chapters 2 and 4 thereof — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 tenance and alteration of their capital (OJ 1992 L 347 p. 64),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                  the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Chamber, G. Hirsch and G.F. Mancini, Judges; A. La Pergola,                 the EC Treaty and that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,             composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the
has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:                           Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            on 20 May 1999, in which it:
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all
    the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Chapters
    2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992              1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed,
    coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    relating to the application of Community rules on the procure-               comply with Council Directive 92/101/EEC of 23 November
    ment procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,                  1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the formation of
    transport and telecommunications sectors, the French Republic                public limited-liability companies and the maintenance and
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) thereof;            alteration of their capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Rejects the remainder of the application;
                                                                            2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.


title: Case C-545/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications — Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — High-speed internet access provider — Obligation to obtain authorisation for the access tariffs to high-speed internet services and to fix those tariffs on the basis of the costs of the provision of such services — No market analysis)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-545/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - High-speed internet access provider - Obligation to obtain authorisation for the access tariffs to high-speed internet services and to fix those tariffs on the basis of the costs of the provision of such services - No market analysis)
   2010/C 179/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)(OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Imposing on an operator a requirement to obtain authorisation for the tariff for providing retail access services to high-speed internet without a market analysis having been carried out.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive);

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 4.4.2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case C-422/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 97/51/EC)

text:
C 79/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.3.2001
for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a standard rate in           5.    On a proper construction of Regulation No 2675/88, of
advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and                  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1091/80 of 2 May 1980
forequarters from adult male bovine animals (OJ 1988 L 239,                      laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for
p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No                             beef and veal and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3258/88 of 21 October 1988 (OJ 1988 L 289, p. 52) — the                          2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                     for the application of the system of securities for agricultural
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                        products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                        No 1181/87 of 29 April 1987, where the competent authority
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        establishes that a carton of meat subject to the scheme covered
30 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         by Regulation No 2675/88 contains items prohibited by
                                                                                Article 4(4) thereof, such as trimmings or separate pieces of fat
                                                                                rolled up within pieces of meat, those regulations permit it to
                                                                                hold that the entire contents of the carton do not qualify for
1.   On a proper construction of Article 1 of Commission Regulation              private storage aid and to forfeit the security given for the
     (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982 laying down the                            advance payment made in respect of that carton plus 20 %.
     conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of
     boned meat of bovine animals, as amended by Commission                6.    On a proper construction of the Community regulations, where
     Regulation (EEC) No 3169/87 of 23 October 1987 amending                     checks relating to cartons of meat reveal evidence in particular
     Regulations (EEC) No 32/82, (EEC) No 1964/82 and (EEC)                      production plants of a deliberate and persistent policy of
     No 74/84 in the matter of customs export formalities for                    infringement of Regulations No 1964/82 and No 2675/88,
     certain beef on which special refunds are granted, every piece of           the competent authority may extrapolate the results of those
     meat had to be individually wrapped, whatever its size, weight              checks across the production of the production plants in
     and nature, and without distinguishing, in particular, between              question.
     scraps and trimmings.
                                                                           7.    Where the sampling checks have revealed evidence of a deliberate
                                                                                and persistent policy of storing material which does not qualify
                                                                                for the private storage aid scheme by virtue of Article 4(4) of
2.   On a proper construction of Articles 7 and 8 of the same                    Regulation No 2675/88, the competent authority is permitted
     regulation, the Member States had the right to exclude from                 to refuse to grant private storage aid and to forfeit the security
     entitlement to special export refunds trimmings whose weight                in its entirety, pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
     was below a certain limit, such as a limit of 100 grams.                    No 1091/80, in respect of the whole of the material to which
                                                                                it has extrapolated the results of the check.
3.   On a proper construction of Article 4(4) of Commission                (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
     Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 of 29 August 1988 providing
     for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a standard rate in
     advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and
     forequarters from adult male bovine animals, as amended by
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3258/88 of 21 October
     1988, trimmings left over from cutting or boning, whatever
     their weight, did not qualify for private storage aid under                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     contracts entered into pursuant to that regulation.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 November 2000
4.   On a proper construction of Regulation No 1964/82, of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on                 in Case C-422/99: Commission of the European Communi-
     the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural                            ties v Italian Republic (1)
     products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No
     2026/83 of 18 July 1983, and of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
     (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down
                                                                                to implement Directive 97/51/EC)
     common detailed rules for the application of the system
     of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3494/88 of 9 November                                              (2001/C 79/07)
     1988 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3993/88 of
     21 December 1988, where the competent authority establishes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     that a carton of meat subject to the scheme covered by
     Regulation No 1964/82 contains items prohibited by the
     legislation, whether trimmings rolled up within other pieces of       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     meat, separate pieces of fat rolled up within pieces of meat, or                          in the European Court Reports)
     non-individually wrapped pieces of meat, those regulations
     permit it to hold that the entire contents of the carton do not       In Case C-422/99: Commission of the European Communities
     qualify for special export refunds and to forfeit the security given  (Agents: C. Schmidt and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
     for the advance payment made in respect of that carton plus           Professor U. Leanza, assisted by I.M. Braguglia) — application
     20 %.                                                                 for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/5
failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regu-                    D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
lations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives                       judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to
a competitive environment in telecommunications (OJ 1997
L 295, p. 23), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               precludes a Member State from applying to products imported from
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                      another Member State, where they are lawfully produced and
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber,                  marketed, a national rule prohibiting the marketing of a cheese
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 without rind under the designation ‘Emmenthal’ in that Member
on 30 November 2000, in which it:                                           State.
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to      (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
      comply with Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council
      Directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of
      adaptation to a competitive environment in telecommunications,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-477/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Eurostock Meat
                                                                            Marketing Ltd v Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Agriculture — Animal health — National emergency
                         of 5 December 2000                                 measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy —
                                                                                Specified risk material)
in Case C-448/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunal de Police, Belley, France): criminal                                               (2001/C 79/09)
         proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restric-                                  (Language of the case: English)
tion — Purely internal situation — Manufacture and
         marketing of Emmenthal cheese without rind)
                                                                            In Case C-477/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
                            (2001/C 79/08)
                                                                            in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd and Department of Agriculture
                      (Language of the case: French)                        for Northern Ireland — on the interpretation of Article 9
                                                                            of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
                                                                            concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395,
                    in the European Court Reports)                          p. 13), Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on
                                                                            the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as
In Case C-448/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 1997
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                     L 216, p. 95) and Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
Police (Local Criminal Court), Belley, (France) for a preliminary           amendment, Article 30 EC) — the Court, composed of:
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
Jean-Pierre Guimont — on the interpretation of Articles 3(a)                M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
and 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Articles 3(1)(a) EC and 28 EC et seq.) — the Court, composed                R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
teur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),                 a judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 October 1997 in Case C-158/94: Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Italian Republic, supported by French Republic and Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligation - Exclusive rights to import and export electricity)

text:
20 . 12 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 387/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  1 . dismisses the application;
                      of 23 October 1997
in Case C-157/94: Commission of the European                          2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great                          to pay the costs;
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Kingdom of the
Netherlands, supported by French Republic and Ireland (')             3 . orders the interveners, the United Kingdom of Great
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and
Exclusive rights to import electricity for public                          Ireland, to bear their own costs.
                           distribution)
                                                                      o OJ C 202, 23 . 7 . 1994 .
                         ( 97/C 387/01 )
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                          of 23 October 1997
                                                                      in Case C-158/94: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great
In Case C-157/94 : Commission of the European                         Britain and Northern Ireland v. Italian Republic,
Communities ( Agents : Richard B. Wainwright and Berend                       supported by French Republic and Ireland ( 1 )
J. Drijber), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted by             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligation —
David Anderson ) v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents:                     Exclusive rights to import and export electricity)
Adrian Bos, Jaap W. de Zwaan and Johannes S. van den                                           ( 97/C 387/02 )
Oosterkamp ), supported by French Republic ( Agents :
Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), Ireland
( Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke                                (Language of the case: Italian)
and Jennifer Payne ) — application for a declaration that,
by granting exclusive import rights for electricity intended
for public distribution, the Kingdom of the Netherlands                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 37                   published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón                        In    Case    C-158/94 :    Commission     of the    European
( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,             Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and
D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G.                 Antonio Aresu ), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll,
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  assisted by David Anderson ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent:
Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,              Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia ),
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October                 supported by French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins
1997, in which it:                                                    and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), Ireland ( Agent: Michael A.
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/2                                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 12 . 97
Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) —             37 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
application for a declaration that, by establishing and               Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
maintaining, as against the other Member States, as part              Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
of a national monopoly of a commercial character,                     Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
exclusive import and export rights in the electricity                 Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet,
industry, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
obligations under Articles 30 , 34 and 37 of the EC Treaty            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho             which it :
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General ; H.                1 . dismisses the application;
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           to pay the costs;
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           Northern Ireland, and Ireland, as interveners, to bear
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                      their own costs .
     to pay the costs;
                                                                      (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, the French Republic and Ireland, as
     interveners, to bear their own costs .
(') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 23 October 1997
                                                                      in Case C- 15 0/95 : Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the European Communities supported by the Council of
                        of 23 October 1997                                                  the European Union (')
in Case C-159/94: Commission               of the European            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC)
Communities, supported by United           Kingdom of Great           No 307/95 — Oil seeds — Final regional reference
Britain and Northern Ireland v.              French Republic,         amounts — Exclusion of Portuguese producers from the
                      supported by Ireland (')                        benefit of compensatory adjustments for overshoots and
                                                                      non-utilization in the Community as a whole — Action
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligatons —                                            for annulment)
  Exclusive rights to import and export gas and electricity)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/04 )
                           ( 97/C 387/03 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
 In   Case    C-159/94 :      Commission    of  the   European        In Case C-150/95 : Portuguese Republic ( Counsel :
 Communities ( Agents : Richard B. Wainwright and                     Professor João Mota de Campos, Agent: Luis Fernandes )
 Hendrik van Lier ), supported by United Kingdom of Great             v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
 Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll,                Antonio Caeiro and Gerard Rozet ), supported by the
 assisted by David Anderson ) v. French Republic ( Agents:            Council of the European Union (Agents : Jan-Peter Hix
 Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), supported              and Paulo Borges ) — application for the annulment of
 by Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John             Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 307/95 of 14 February
 D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) — application for a                     1995 establishing corrected final regional reference
 declaration that, by establishing exclusive import and               amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza
 export rights for gas and electricity, the French Republic           seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95 marketing year
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 34 and        ( OJ 1995 L 36 , p. 2 ), in so far as it reduces by 20% the


title: Case T-437/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/20

         Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-437/16)
   (2016/C 371/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of 86 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5 and AD 7) in the field of audit, published in volume C 171 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 May 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court in Case C-566/10 P, which states that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit to English, French and German the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the Commission has infringed the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language, and has created further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), infringement of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination.


title: Case T-222/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)
   (Case T-222/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 6/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiume, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 1257/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG and Sanatur GmbH
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and OHIM shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Opinion 1/13: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/2

         Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 1/13)
   (2013/C 226/02)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

      Question submitted to the Court

   Does the acceptance of the accession of a third country to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction fall within the exclusive competence of the Union?


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/12

         Removal from the register of Case C-483/04 (1)

   (2005/C 330/28)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 8 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-483/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2005.


title: Case T-207/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Balancing of interests — No urgency)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
   (Case T-207/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Balancing of interests - No urgency))
   (2015/C 320/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare QC, M. Lester, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: N. Rouam and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 39, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 39, p. 3), in so far as each applies to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-198/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Section XVII — Vehicles — Chapter 87 — Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof — Headings 8703 and 8713 — Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors — Definition of ‘disabled persons’)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-198/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Section XVII - Vehicles - Chapter 87 - Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof - Headings 8703 and 8713 - Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors - Definition of ‘disabled persons’))
   (2016/C 260/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd, Invacare International SARL

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning:

                           —

                           the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean that the product is designed solely for disabled persons;

                           —

                           the fact that a vehicle may be used by non-disabled persons is irrelevant to the classification under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature

                           —

                           the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are not capable of amending the scope of the tariff headings of the Combined Nomenclature.

               2.

               the words ‘disabled persons’ under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that they designate persons affected by a non-marginal limit on their ability to walk, the duration of that limitation and the existence of other limitations relating to the capacities of those persons being irrelevant.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2002 in Case T-232/00: Chef Revival USA Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Rule 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
C 202/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.8.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and R. Wain-
                                                                          wright): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                         of 13 June 2002                                  decision of 29 June 2000 (C (2000) 1684 final) to the effect
                                                                          that repayment to the applicant of import duties is not justified,
in Case T-232/00: Chef Revival USA Inc. v Office for                      the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                       Designs)(OHIM) (1)                                 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                          on 4 July 2002, in which it:
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
 proceedings — Rule 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)                  1.    Dismisses the application;
                         (2002/C 202/31)                                  2.    Orders the applicant to pay the defendant’s costs in addition to
                                                                                its own.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
In Case T-232/00, Chef Revival USA Inc., established in Lodi,
New Jersey (United States), represented by N. Jenkins, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) (Agent: A. von Mühlendahl), defendant, the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) being Joachı́n Massagué Marı́n, of Sabadell
(Spain): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case
R 181/1999-3), as corrected by corrigendum of 6 July 2000,                                         of 25 June 2002
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio       in Case T-311/00: British American Tobacco (Invest-
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-            ments) Ltd v Commission of the European Communi-
ment on 13 June 2002, in which it:                                                                       ties (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and           (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
      Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case R 181/1999-3), as rectified          Commission documents — Whether documents exist — No
      by corrigendum of 6 July 2000;                                      need to proceed to judgment — Costs caused unreasonably
                                                                                or vexatiously)
2.    Orders the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/33)
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-311/00, British American Tobacco (Investments)
                                                                          Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented
                           of 4 July 2002                                 by S. Crosby, Solicitor, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, X. Lewis and M. Shotter):
in Case T-239/00: SCI UK Ltd v Commission of the                          Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                   European Communities (1)                               7 September 2000 refusing to grant access to certain docu-
                                                                          ments concerning preparatory work relating to the proposal
(Repayment of import duties — Article 13 of Regulation                    for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
     (EEC) No 1430/79 — Meaning of ‘special situation’)                   (COM(1999) 594 final), presented by the Commission on
                                                                          7 January 2000, on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 202/32)                                  and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                          the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (OJ 2000 C 150 E, p. 43), the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
                                                                          and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
In Case T-239/00, SCI UK Ltd, established in Irvine (United               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 2002, in which
Kingdom), represented by L. Allen, Barrister, v Commission of             it:


title: Case T-415/12: Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Xeda International and Others v Commission

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/34

         Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Xeda International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-415/12)
   2012/C 355/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France); Pace International LLC (Washington, United States); and Decco Iberica Post Cosecha, SAU (Paterna, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2012 (1); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful for manifest errors of appraisal. The Commission has erred as a matter of law in justifying the contested act on the grounds of hypothetical concerns: (i) the three unidentified metabolites and (ii) processed commodities. In relation to these concerns, the Commission also erred in law by asking the applicants for probatio diabolica, namely by asking for the identity of the unidentified metabolites in stored apples whereas this was technically impossible, and by asking the applicants to demonstrate an absence of risk in relation to low risk compounds found below the Limit of Quantification (LOQ) in processed commodities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful for violations of due process and right of defence. The contested act is based on a report from the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) which introduced a new requirement — the submission of a fully validated analytical method — at a very late stage of the evaluation procedure. The applicants submitted the requested data to the Rapporteur, who in turn evaluated it and prepared a conclusion whereby the data were sufficient to address the issue raised by EFSA. However, the Commission disregarded the new data. Moreover, the applicants were not given an opportunity to address the issue due to the Commission's misunderstanding of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 (2) concerning the submission of new data.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is disproportionate. Even if it were accepted that the new studies could not be taken into consideration, the Commission could have adopted an inclusion decision with less restrictive measures, such as making it subject to confirmatory data.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2012 of 29 June 2012 concerning the non approval of the active substance diphenylamine, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012 L 171, p. 2)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5)


title: Case F-62/09: Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Strack v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/36

         Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-62/09)
   2009/C 193/61
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tetterborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject the applicant’s complaint of 27 November 2008 as unfounded and to reject the applicant’s claim for damages

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied rejection by the European Commission of 8 November 2008 of the applicant’s request of 8 May 2008, and in so far as necessary in relation to this plea in law or the fourth plea in law, also annul the Commission’s decision on the complaint of 27 March 2009;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay an appropriate sum in damages amounting to at least EUR 15 000 in respect of the delays and damage caused by the Commission’s earlier unlawful conduct in relation to the appraisal and promotion procedures and also by the failure to comply with Cases T-85/04 and T-394/04 by the time at which this action was brought;

               —

               Order the defendant, in addition, with regard to the similar additional damage caused, to pay appropriate damages of at least EUR 10 per day, from the day following the bringing of the action until the day on which there is full and lawful compliance with Cases T-85/04 and T-394/04 by lawful completion of the appraisal and promotion procedures concerning the applicant to which those cases refer, equal to the payment of the full surrogate damages which would be payable in the event of acceptance of the fifth plea-in-law below;

               —

               Order the defendant, on account of the untrue allegations made in the defendant’s letter of 27 March 2009 which go beyond the mere rejection of the complaint by impugning his dignity and professional reputation, to pay damages to the applicant amounting to at least EUR 5 000;

               —

               Order the defendant, on account of its sole responsibility for having prevented the appraisal and promotion procedure concerning the applicant from being lawfully carried out, to pay the defendant an appropriate sum in surrogate damages of at least EUR 25 000;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State or for an international organisation — Definition of State — Main occupation)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2005
   in Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State or for an international organisation - Definition of State - Main occupation)
   (2005/C 217/80)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacio, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for first, annulment of the Commission's Decision of 19 April 2002 refusing the applicant the expatriation allowance laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and second, payment of that allowance as from the date on which she assumed her duties, increased by default interest — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


25.11.2000            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 335/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-265/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-268/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/72)                                                      (2000/C 335/75)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-265/98 (reference for a preliminary           the register of Case C-268/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Compañ Calbuig.               Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Marı́a Casas
                                                                     Minguélez.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-266/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/73)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-269/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 335/76)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-266/98 (reference for a preliminary           By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v Gianfranco Caminati.                the register of Case C-269/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Planeta Crédito SA v Antonio Villar Castelao.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-267/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/74)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-270/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                    (2000/C 335/77)
the register of Case C-267/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rafael Bogas         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Cardeñosa.                                                          the register of Case C-270/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Salvat Artel SA v Pilar López Aznar.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case F-31/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Guittet v Commission (Civil Service — Former official — Social security — Accident — Closure of the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Temporal application of the scale annexed to the new version of the rules concerning insurance against accidents and occupational diseases — Length of the procedure)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Guittet v Commission
   (Case F-31/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Former official - Social security - Accident - Closure of the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Temporal application of the scale annexed to the new version of the rules concerning insurance against accidents and occupational diseases - Length of the procedure)
   2012/C 227/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations by granting the applicant a rate of permanent invalidity of 64,5 % and, secondly, the application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 27 July 2008 to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident to Mr Guittet on 8 December 2003;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Guittet the sum of EUR 2 500;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Guittet.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 59.