title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 September 1995 in Case T-571/93: Lefebvre Frères et Soeurs v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Bananas - Action for damages - Delay in submitting a proposal for a regulation establishing the common organiziation of the market - Validity of decisions of the Commission based on Article 115 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 286/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 10 . 95
Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke ) v.                   Claude Chavance ) and Italian Republic ( Agent: Danilo Del
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                     Gaizo ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Antonino Abate, Bernhard Jansen, Bernard Langeheine,                  Decision 93/ 127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
Claus Michael Happe and Meinhard Hilf) — application for              safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
annulment        of  Article   2   of   Commission      Decision      Netherlands Antilles ( OJ 1993 L 50 , p. 27 ) and of
91 /391 /EEC of 26 March 1991 on aid granted by the                   Commission Decision 93/21 1 /EEC of 13 April 1993
German Government to Deggendorf GmbH, a producer of                   modifying Decision 93/ 127/EEC ( OJ 1993 L 90 , p. 36 ), and
polyamide and polyester yarns located in Deggendorf                   for an order that the Commission make good the damage
( Bavaria ) ( OJ 1991 L 215 , p. 16 ), and of Article 2 of            which the applicants consider they have suffered and may
Commission Decision 92/330/EEC of 18 December 1991 on                 yet suffer as a result of the adoption of those decisions — the
aid by Germany to the Deggendorf textile works ( OJ 1992              Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended
L 1 83 , p. 36 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,       composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
extended composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli,                   Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas and C. W.
President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a            14 September 1995 , in which it:
judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which it:
                                                                      1 . annuls Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Decision
1 . dismisses the actions;                                                 93/127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
                                                                          safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
                                                                           Netherlands Antilles ;
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as
     those of the defendant;
                                                                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the applications;
3.   the intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and
0 ) OJ No C 212 , 14 . 8 . 1991 and OJ No C 167, 4 . 7 . 1992 .
                                                                           one-third of the applicant's costs, the applicants to bear
                                                                           two-thirds of their own costs and the interveners to bear
                                                                           their own costs .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 171 , 22 . 6 . 1993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 September 1995
in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 : Antillean Rice
Mills and Others v. Commission of the European                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         Communities ( ] )
                                                                                of 14 September 1995
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
                                                                      in Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Frères et Soeurs v. Commission
Safeguard measure — Application for annnulment —
                          Admissibility)                                             of the European Communities ( 1 )
                          ( 95/C 286/24 )                             (Agriculture — Bananas — Action for damages — Delay in
                                                                      submitting a proposal for a regulation establishing the
                                                                      common organiziation of the market — Validity of
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                       decisions ofthe Commission based on Article 115 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty)
In Joined Cases T-480/93 : Antillean Rice Mills NV,                                              ( 95/C 286/25 )
established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, and Trading &
Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, established in Amsterdam,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Paul Glazener and Winfred Knibbeler, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; and                    In Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Freres et Soeurs, established at
T-483/93 : European Rice Brokers AW, established in                   Douai ( France ), GIE Fructifruit, established at Barentin
 Oranjestad, Aruba, Alesie Curaçao NV, established in                 ( France ), Association des Mûrisseurs Indépendants,
Willemstad, Curaçao , Netherlands Antilles, and Guyana                established at Dieppe ( France ), and Star Fruits Cie,
 Investments AW, established in Oranjestad, Aruba,                    established in Brussels, represented by Jean-Philippe Kunlin
 represented by Johan Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an              and Jean-Paul Montenot, of the Paris Bar, with an address
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
 Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against Commission of the              Medernach , 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
 European Communities (Agents: Etienne Lasnet, Thomas                 European Communities ( agents : Gerard Rozet and Marc de
 van Rijn and Marc van der Woude ), supported by Council              Pauw ), supported by the French Republic ( agents: Catherine
 of the European Union (Agent: Guus Houttuin ), French                 de Salins and Nicolas Eybalin ) — application for damages
 Republic (Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and            pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10. 95           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 11
of Article 2 1 5 of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance       3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs.
( Second Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September             (>) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
1995 , in which it:
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1995
3 . orders the French Republic, intervener, to bear its own
      costs .                                                         in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                                                                      de Urânio SA ( ENU ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
(') OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                       (EAEC — Actions for annulment ofmeasures — Supply —
                                                                      Right of option and exclusive right of the Euratom Supply
                                                                      Agency to conclude contracts for the supply of ores, source
                                                                      materials and special fissile materials — Balancing ofsupply
                                                                      and demand -— Infringement of the rules of the Treaty —
                                                                      Communitypreference — None — Commission instruction
                                                                      to the Supply Agency — Principles of good faith and
                                                                           legitimate expectations — Non-contractual liability)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         ( 95/C 286/27 )
                       of 14 September 1995
in Case T-171/94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co Ltd v.                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              Council of the European Union ( ] )
                                                                      In Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                           ( 95/C 286/26 )                            de Urânio SA ( ENU ), established at Urgeiriça, Nelas
                                                                      ( Portugal ), represented by João Luis dos Reis Mota de
                                                                      Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                 (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the Office of Joaquim Calvo Basáran, 34
                                                                      Boulevard Ernest Feltgen v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Jürgen
In Case T-171 /94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co. Ltd, a            Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
company with its registered office at Seoul, represented by           Commission's decision of 19 July 1993 , on a procedure for
Pierre Didier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       the application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Laurent Mosar, 8 Rue                 EAEC Treaty, rejecting requests which the applicant had
Notre-Dame , against the Council of the European Union                submitted to the Commission in a letter of 21 December
(Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge Monteiro and Philip               1990 in order to resolve the problem of the disposal of its
Bentley ), supported by the Commission of the European                uranium production, and for a declaration that the
Communities ( Agent: Marc L. F. De Pauw ) — application               European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
for the annulment, in relation to the applicant, of Council           damage which the applicant is alleged to have incurred as a
Regulation (EEC ) No 2887/93 of 20 October 1993                       result of an alleged breach of the rules of the Treaty — the
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended
certain electronic weighing scales originating in Singapore           composition ) composed of D. P. M. Barringtom, A. Saggio,
and the Republic of Korea ( OJ 1993 L 263 , p. 1 ), the Court         H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1995 , in
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, R.                 which it :
Schintgen, R. García-Valdecasas, C. W. Bellamy and P.
Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in which                  1 . dismisses the applications;
 it :
                                                                       2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 316 , 3 . 12 . 1992 and OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1995 .
 2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the
      Council's costs, including those relating to the
      application for interim measures;


title: Case T-75/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Rod Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark ROD — Earlier national figurative marks RODI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Earlier opposition proceedings — Rule 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Rod Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)
   (Case T-75/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ROD - Earlier national figurative marks RODI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Earlier opposition proceedings - Rule 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 090/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH (Weiden in der Oberpfalz, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand and J. Biener, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rodi TR, SL, (Lleida, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2014 (Case R 281/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rodi TR, SL and Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-229/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro
   (Case C-229/16)
   (2016/C 287/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P.

      Defendant: João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

      Questions referred

               A.

               Does Directive 2000/35/EC (1) … of 29 June 2000 apply, in the light of recital 13 of that directive, to the system for the payment of the State’s contributions to the cost of medicinal products dispensed to members of the SNS, established by Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and implemented by Order No 3- B/2007?

               B.

               In the event that it does apply, is it possible to conclude from Articles 5 and 6 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 the existence of an adhesion contract capable of falling within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned directive in view of the fact that it is possible to adhere to or be released from that contract, depending on whether or not medicinal products are dispensed?

               C.

               Are Article 8 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and Articles 8 and 10 of Order No 3-B/2007, in making provision for monthly invoicing, compatible with Directive 2000/35 … (Article 3(1)(b)(i))?

               D.

               Is it possible to regard Article 10 of Order No 3-B/2007 as falling within the scope of [Article 3(2)] of the abovementioned directive, where it provides that the deadline for payment is to be the 10th day of the month following the one in which the invoice was received?

      (1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).


title: Case C-305/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 17 May 2001 in the case of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau against MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factoring GmbH

text:
2.3.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/3
(the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrotisis                     have conferred on taxable persons a right to opt for
Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator, Ethniki                 taxation? Which of the transactions listed in
Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou kai Pathiti-                  Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC are involved?
kou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Georgios I. Tsamasfi-
ros and Others on the following question:
                                                                          (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
In view of the fact that Article 25 of the Second Council
Directive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 does not lay
down a penalty for any infringement of that article, is it
compatible with the objectives pursued by that directive for a
provision of national law to declare valid shares which have
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
resulted from an increase, pursuant to ministerial decisions, in
                                                                          Bundesfinanzhof of 27 September 2001 in the case of
the share capital of public limited companies where the
                                                                          KapHag Renditefonds, 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf,
increase is invalid as contrary to Article 25 of the directive,
                                                                               3. Tranche GbR against Finanzamt Charlottenburg
provided that the provision confers, in return, a right against
the State to full compensation for any harm which the pre-
existing shareholders of those public limited companies have                                       (Case C-442/01)
suffered as a consequence of the increase. In particular, may
that right to full compensation be regarded, in view inter alia                                     (2002/C 56/06)
of the long time which has since passed and the successive
increases which have followed (by decisions of the general
meeting), as equivalent, under Community law, to recognition              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
that the shares which have resulted from the invalid increase             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
in the share capital are invalid?                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 27 September 2001, which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of KapHag Renditefonds,
(1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 1.                                           35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf, 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt
                                                                          Charlottenburg on the following questions:
                                                                          1.    Where a partnership assumes a partner on payment of a
                                                                                capital contribution in cash, does it effect a supply to him
                                                                                for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                                Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
                                                                          2.    If so, is it an incidental transaction for the purposes of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                         Article 19(2), sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, and is
hof by order of that court of 17 May 2001 in the case                           the taxable person entitled to rely on Article 19(2),
of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau against MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-                             sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which
                         Factoring GmbH                                         such incidental transactions do not exclude a deduction?
                          (Case C-305/01)                                 (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (2002/C 56/05)
                                                                          Action brought on 3 December 2001 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                                                lic of Germany
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 May 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 3 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                                             (Case C-463/01)
the case of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-
Factoring GmbH on the following questions:                                                          (2002/C 56/07)
1.    Can a factoring company which buys debts and assumes
      liability for the risk of loss in relation to those debts be        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      said to be using goods and services received by it for the          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      purposes of its transactions?                                       ties on 3 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
2.    Do such activities involve taxable transactions or trans-           in the Commission of the European Communities, with an
      actions (they involve the latter in any event) for the              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      purposes of Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1)              Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      which may be taxed to the extent that the Member States             Kirchberg.


24 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 159/29
— annul the decision of 20 July 1994 drawing up the                          Removal from the register of Case T-445/93 ( )
     applicant's staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 and                                     ( 95/C 159/60 )
     all subsequent decisions adopted on the basis of that
     report,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of
     10 February 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's             By order of 6 April 1 995 the President of the Fourth
    complaint, and                                                    Chamber (extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              from the register of Case T-445/93 : Eastern Electricity pic,
                                                                      East Midlands Electricity pic, Electricity Association
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Services Limited, London Electricity pic, Manweb pic,
The applicant, an official of the Court of Auditors of grade          Midlands Electricity pic, National Power pic, Northern
A 5 and President of the Staff Committee of that institution          Electric pic, Norweb pic, PowerGen pic, Seeboard pic,
at the material time, complains that the appointing                   Southern Electric pic, South Wales Electricity pic, South
authority failed to observe certain principles of law when            Western Electricity pic, The National Grid Company pic
drawing up his staff report for the period 1992 to 1993 .             and Yorkshire Electricity Group pic v . Council of the
                                                                      European Union and Commission of the European
He argues that it was contrary to Article 43 of the Staff             Communities .
Regulations and general implementing provisions for his
staff report to have been drawn up by the head of his original        f 1 ) OJ No C 57, 4 . 3 . 1992 .
department when, during the material time, he had been
placed at the disposal of the Staff Committee on a full-time
basis .
Moreover, since the general implementing provisions
provide that the Secretary-General is, in the event of an                      Removal from the register of Case T-8/94 H
appeal, competent only in respect of those officials assessed                                       95/C 159/61 )
who are directly under the authority of the director of a
preparatory group, which is not the case of the Staff
Committee , it is contrary to those provisions for his                                (Language of tbe case: French)
definitive staff report to have been drawn up by the
Secretary-General .                                                   By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Finally, the applicant stresses the fact that over the period in      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
question his immediate superior could not have taken                  T-8/94 : H. v. Commission of the European
account of developments in his merits since his last staff            Communities .
report, given that the duties undertaken by the Staff
Committee form an integral part of the services which                 f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
officials are required to ensure .
        Removal from the register of Case T-20/93 C )                        Removal from the register of Case T- 1 88/94 ( 1 )
                         ( 95/C 159/59 )                                                          ( 95/C 159/62
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                                       (Language of the case: Frencb)
By order of 5 April 1995 the President of the Third Chamber           By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Second
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-20/93 :               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Willy Seghers v . Council of the European Union.                      T-l 88/94: Nathalie Creste v . Council of the European
                                                                      Union .
(M OJ No C 89 , 31 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .


title: Case C-141/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2017 — José Luis Cabana Carballo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2017 — José Luis Cabana Carballo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-141/17)
   (2017/C 195/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: José Luis Cabana Carballo

      Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 53(3)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be regarded as one of the contrary provisions referred to by Article 5 thereof and therefore as applicable instead of the provisions of Article 5(b)?

               2.

               For the purposes of Article 53(3)(a) of that regulation, is the Spanish legislation concerning the 20 % supplement to the pension for total permanent incapacity to perform the normal occupation to be regarded as establishing that allowances and income acquired abroad are to be taken into account?

               3.

               If the reply to the previous question is in the negative, is the Spanish administrative and judicial practice of suspending the 20 % supplement to the pension for total permanent capacity to perform the normal occupation when the beneficiary receives a retirement pension from another Member State contrary to that Community provision?

               4.

               If the reply to question 2 is in the affirmative, is it to be regarded as incompatible with Article 53(3)(d) of the Regulation for the 20 % supplement to the pension for total permanent incapacity to perform the normal occupation also to be suspended in respect of that part which exceeds the amount of the pension from the other Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland), OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


               25.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 324/11

         Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-4/12)
   2012/C 324/09
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the contested decision; and

               2.

               Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is an operator in the tour bus market, active in Norway and several EU Member States.

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 70506.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506,

                           —

                           has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011,

                           —

                           has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and

                           —

                           has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2001 in Case C-1/01 P: Asia Motor France SA, André-François Bach, and Monin automoles SA v Commission of the European Communities, and Europe Auto Services SA (EAS) (Competition — Decision rejecting complaints — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 331/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                          of 10 July 2001
                                                                          in Case C-1/01 P: Asia Motor France SA, André-François
                                                                          Bach, and Monin automoles SA v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, and Europe Auto Services SA
in Case C-497/99 P: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the                                                  (EAS) (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition — Decision rejecting complaints — Appeal
                                                                          in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
(Appeal — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC)
— Sugar — Collective dominant position — Abuse —
Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly                                                (2001/C 331/09)
                            unfounded)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2001/C 331/08)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case C-1/01 P: Asia Motor France SA, established in
                                                                          Chemille (France), in liquidation, André-François Bach, acting
                                                                          in his capacity as receiver of the business of Jean-Michel
                                                                          Cesbron, residing in Chemille, the subject of a court order in
In Case C-497/99 P: Irish Sugar plc, established in Carlow                bankruptcy, and Monin automobiles SA, established in Bourg-
(Ireland), represented by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt — appeal                de-Péage (France) in liquidation, (avocat: J-C. Fourgoux) —
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 7 October 1999                    the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October
in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar v Commission [1999] ECR II-                  2000 in Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v
2969, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                  Commission [2000] ECR II-3453, seeking to have that judgment
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                 set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Com-
Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by C. Quigley) —                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                    and F. Siredey-Garnier) and Europe Auto Services SA (EAS),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann, L. Sevón, S. von Bahr                 established in Livange (Luxembourg) — the Court (Second
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber,
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an               R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
order on 10 July 2001, in which it:                                       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                          20 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                               1.    The appeal is dismissed;
2.    Orders Irish Sugar plc to pay the costs.                            2.    Asia Motor France SA, Mr Bach, in his capacity as receiver of
                                                                                the business of Mr Cesbron, and Monin automobiles SA shall
                                                                                pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case F-105/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Scheefer v Parliament (Staff case — Temporary staff — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Reclassification of a contract for a fixed period as a contract for an indefinite period — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Scheefer v Parliament
   (Case F-105/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Temporary staff - Renewal of a fixed-term contract - Reclassification of a contract for a fixed period as a contract for an indefinite period - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS)
   2011/C 252/110
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam and P. Ketter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Ignătescu and L. Chrétien, then by R. Ignătescu and S. Alves, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to convert the applicant’s temporary staff contract into a contract for an indefinite period in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS, and application for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision contained in the letter of 12 February 2009 whereby the Secretary-General of the European Parliament informed Ms Scheefer, first, that it had not been possible to find any legally acceptable solution to enable her to continue working within the medical service at Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and, secondly, that her temporary staff contract would end on 31 March 2009;

               2.

               orders the European Parliament to pay to Ms Scheefer the difference between, (i) the amount of the remuneration which she would have earned if she had continued to be employed by the Parliament and (ii) the amount of the remuneration, fees, unemployment benefit or any other allowance in lieu which she has in fact received since 1 April 2009 in place of the remuneration which she was receiving as a member of the temporary staff;

               3.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ms Scheefer.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010, p. 52.


title: Case C-14/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n° 5 San Javier (Spain) lodged on 14 January 2008 — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 San Javier (Spain) lodged on 14 January 2008 — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL
   (Case C-14/08)
   (2008/C 92/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First Instance and Preliminary Investigations) no 5 San Javier
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (1) extend to the service of extrajudicial documents exclusively by and on private persons using the physical and personal resources of the courts and tribunals of the European Union and the regulatory framework of European law even when no court proceedings have been commenced? Or,

               2

               Does Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 on the contrary apply exclusively in the context of judicial cooperation between Member States and court proceedings in progress (Articles 61(c), 67(1) and 65 EC and recital 6 of the preamble to Regulation 1348/2000)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).


title: Case C-255/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), made on 23 March 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), made on 23 March 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi
   (Case C-255/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Roma

      Party to the main proceedings

   Alessandro Sacchi

      Question referred

   What interpretation is to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events, regard being had also to the principle of effective judicial protection, in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences,: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators; (b) ensure the de facto maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the conclusion of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their betting outlets within a specified distance from those already in existence); (c) lay down cases in which the licence may lapse, with forfeiture of large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case C-96/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Niebüll) — Standesamt Stadt Niebüll v Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Determination of a child's surname — Procedure to transfer that determination to one of the parents — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Niebüll) — Standesamt Stadt Niebüll v Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul
   (Case C-96/04) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of a child's surname - Procedure to transfer that determination to one of the parents - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2006/C 143/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Niebüll
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Standesamt Stadt Niebüll

      Defendant: Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Niebüll — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Interpretation of the principles of Community law relating to European citizenship and freedom of movement of persons — Minor child born and residing in one Member State and having the nationality of another Member State — Application in the latter Member State for the mother's name to be joined to that of the father — Refusal
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Amtsgericht Niebüll in its decision of 2 June 2003.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case F-20/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Barnett v EESC (Civil service — Pension — Retirement pension — Early retirement without reduction of pension rights — General implementing provisions for Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions — Interests of the service — Definition — None — Duration of the applicant’s professional activity — Taking account of all of the professional career both inside and outside the EU institutions — Discretion of the institution — Legality)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Barnett v EESC
   (Case F-20/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Pension - Retirement pension - Early retirement without reduction of pension rights - General implementing provisions for Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions - Interests of the service - Definition - None - Duration of the applicant’s professional activity - Taking account of all of the professional career both inside and outside the EU institutions - Discretion of the institution - Legality))
   (2015/C 363/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: initially N. Nikolajsen, lawyer, then S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, L. Camarena Januzec and K. Gambino, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request to be entitled to early retirement without a reduction of her pension rights, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2013, issuing the list of beneficiaries, in respect of 2013, of the measure laid down in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as it refuses to allow Mrs Barnett to benefit from that measure;

               2)

               orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Barnett.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 55.


title: Case T-381/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Eurofer v Commission

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/56

         Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Eurofer v Commission
   (Case T-381/11)
   2011/C 269/123
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2011) 2772, OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1),

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant is challenging the Commission’s Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) It claims that that decision should be annulled in its entirety.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the product benchmark for hot metal, in breach of Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC (2)

               The applicant claims that the requirements for product benchmarks laid down in Annex I to the contested decision are illegal.
               The applicant claims that the determination of the product benchmark for hot metal infringes Article 10a of Directive 2003/87, since the Commission failed to take account of the full carbon content which is emitted during the production of iron and steel by including their use for the production of electricity, but applied a reduction of approximately 25 %. It follows from the wording of the second sentence of the third paragraph of Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87, the scheme as well as the objective and the historical interpretation of the Directive that the Commission is not entitled to apply such reductions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               The applicant further claims that the Commission failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its decision. The reasoning on the determination of the benchmarks is defective. Moreover, the Commission’s reservations with regard to possible distortions of competition were not properly reasoned. This amounts to an infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
               The contested decision also infringes the principle of proportionality as regards the determination of the product benchmark for hot metal.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment
               In addition, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that it is necessary to annul the contested decision in its entirety
               The applicant is of the view that the contested decision should be annulled in its entirety, since annulment limited exclusively to the benchmark for hot metal would automatically lead to application of a fall-back method for the allocation of free allowances pursuant to Article 10(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 3(c) of the contested decision. This would place the applicant in an even worse position than if the Commission’s incorrect benchmark values for hot metal were applied.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case F-66/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/32

         Action brought on 15 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-66/14)
   2014/C 361/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Civil Service — Application for a declaration that Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 is unlawful and inapplicable and for the annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies those new GIPs.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 is unlawful and, accordingly, inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decision of 4 October 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into service, on transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions, by application of the GIPs of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-276/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom)) — Everything Everywhere Ltd (formerly T-Mobile UK Ltd) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption — Article 13B(d)(1) and (3) — Negotiation of credit — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply — Additional charges invoiced where certain methods of payment are used for mobile telephone services)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom)) — Everything Everywhere Ltd (formerly T-Mobile UK Ltd) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-276/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(1) and (3) - Negotiation of credit - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Additional charges invoiced where certain methods of payment are used for mobile telephone services)
   2011/C 30/09
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Everything Everywhere Limited (formerly T-Mobile UK Ltd)

      Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — Interpretation of Art. 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Scope — Meaning of ‘services having the effect of transferring funds and entailing changes in the legal and financial situation’ — Services debiting one account and crediting another account by the corresponding amount — Services not including the carrying out of tasks consisting in debiting one account and crediting another with the corresponding amount but which, where a transfer of funds results, may be seen as having been the cause of that transfer — System of payment for calls from a mobile telephone

      Operative part of the judgment

   For the purposes of collecting value added tax, the additional charges invoiced by a provider of telecommunications services to its customers, where the latter pay for those services not by Direct Debit or by Bankers’ Automated Clearing System transfer but by credit card, debit card, cheque or cash over the counter at a bank or authorised payment agent acting on behalf of that service provider, do not constitute consideration for a supply of services distinct and independent from the principal supply of services consisting in the supply of telecommunications services.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-49/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Unibet International Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Conditions for the award of a concession for the organisation of online games of chance — Practical impossibility of obtaining such a licence for private operators established in other Member States)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Unibet International Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala
   (Case C-49/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Conditions for the award of a concession for the organisation of online games of chance - Practical impossibility of obtaining such a licence for private operators established in other Member States))
   (2017/C 277/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unibet International Ltd.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States;

               2.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding penalties, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national legislation introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to Article 56 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-233/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Permesaen v Office national des pensions

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Permesaen v Office national des pensions
   (Case C-233/06)
   (2006/C 190/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Noëlle Permesaen

      Defendant: Office national des pensions
   Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

               2.

               With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 — Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Existing aid — Obligation to state reasons — Decision to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure)

text:
               17.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/21

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 22 August 2011
   in Case E-14/10
   Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Existing aid — Obligation to state reasons — Decision to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure)
   2011/C 336/15
   In Case E-14/10, Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS as intervener — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 22 August 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene).

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case C-250/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 6 June 2006 — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision Brutele, Wolu TV ASBL v Belgian State

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 6 June 2006 — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision Brutele, Wolu TV ASBL v Belgian State
   (Case C-250/06)
   (2006/C 212/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision Brutele, Wolu TV ASBL

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the obligation imposed on undertakings which distribute television programmes by cable to distribute certain pre-determined programmes be interpreted as conferring on the programmes' authors a ‘special right’ within the meaning of Article 86 EC?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, must the rules referred to at the end of Article 86(1) EC (namely ‘the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular … those rules provided for in Articles 12 and Articles 81 to 89’) be interpreted as not permitting Member States to require undertakings which distribute television programmes by cable to distribute certain television programmes by private broadcasting organisations, but ‘falling under’ (within the meaning of the Belgian Law of 30 March 1995 on broadcasting distributors networks and the pursuit of broadcasting activities in the bilingual region of Bruxelles-Capitale) specified public powers of that State, with the result that the number of programmes coming from other Member States or non-members of the European Union and of organisations not falling under those public powers has fallen by the number of programmes covered by the ‘must carry’ obligation?

               3.

               Must Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that a prohibited barrier to the freedom to provide services exists from the time a measure taken by a Member State, in the present case the obligation to retransmit television programmes over cable distribution networks, is liable to impede directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the provision of services from another Member State to recipients of those services in the first Member State, which will be the case where, on account of that measure, the service provider finds itself in an unfavourable position when negotiating for access to those networks?

               4.

               Must Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that a prohibited barrier to the freedom to provide services exists because a measure taken by a Member State, in the present case the obligation to retransmit television programmes over cable distribution networks, is granted only to undertakings established in that Member State in the majority of cases, owing to the place of establishment of those benefiting from the measure or the fact that they have some other link to that Member State — while there is no justification for such a barrier based on overriding reasons of public interest in compliance with the principle of proportionality?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 February 1995 in Case T-112/94: Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Action for annulment - Pre-litigation procedure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages - Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based - Inadmissibility)

text:
22. 4. 95          l_EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /7
office is in Boulogne-sur-Mer ( France ), Klipper                   order to fill a post declared vacant by notice of vacancy
Investissements Sàrl, whose registered office is in                 No 62/91 , secondly, of the decision of the Economic and
Concarneau, v. Commission of the European Communities               Social Committee to reject the applicant's candidature for
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for, first, annulment of the        the said post and, thirdly, of the decision appointing Mr B.
Commission's letter of 2 June 1993 refusing to allocate to          as a director in the General Secretariat of the Economic and
the applicants the balance of Community assistance granted          Social Committee, the Court of First Instance ( Second
for the construction of a fishing vessel and, secondly, an          Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M.
order pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the        Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has
EC Treaty that the Commission make good the harm                    given a judgment on 22 March 1 995 in which it:
allegedly suffered by the applicants, the Court of First
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,              1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
President, and R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas,                     applicant the sum of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March                   breach of administrative duty;
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
    seeks annulment of the decision of 2 June 1 993;
                                                                    3,    orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
2 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it          own costs and halfofthe applicant's costs, the other half
    seeks payment of the balance of the aid sought;                       to be borne by the applicant himself.
3 , the Commission is ordered to pay the applicants interest ,      ( J ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
    at the rate of 8% per annum of the sum of FF 875 000
    for the period from 10 January to 12 June 1992;
4 , the remainder of the application is dismissed;
5 , the applicants are to bear their own costs and jointly and
    severally one-quarter of the costs of the Commission.                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     The Commission is to bear three-quarters of its own                                   of 15 February 1995
     costs.
                                                                    in Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of
0 ) OJ No C 293 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .                                                   the European Communities i 1 )
                                                                    (Officials — Action for annulment — Pre-litigation
                                                                    procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for
                                                                    damages — Summary of the pleas in law on which the
                                                                                application is based — Inadmissibility)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /20
                      (Second Chamber)
                      of 22 March 1995                                              (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis v. Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (*)                   In Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
(Officials — Recruitmentprocedure — Stating ofreasons —             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Misuse ofpowers — Transfer from the Language Service to             Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
 Category A — Articles 7, 25, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue
                           Regulations)                             des Bains, against the Commission of the European
                         ( 95/C 101/19 )                            Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack ) — application for
                                                                    a judgment ( i ) condemning the Commission for its failure to
               (Language of the case: French)                       tell the applicant what post he occupies and what his duties
                                                                    are and, consequently, its failure to give him work and ( ii )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        awarding the applicant damages — the Court of First
         published in the European Court Reports)                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
                                                                    President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
In Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis, official of the Economic        Registrar, made an order on 15 February 1995 , the
and Social Committee of the European Communities,                   operative part of which is as follows :
resident in Brussels, represented by Olivier Slusny and
Marcel Slusny, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt,
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v . Economic and Social
                                                                    2 , the parties shall bear their own costs. .
Committee of the European Communities (Agent: D.
Lagasse ) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Economic and Social Committee to follow the                  (!) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
procedure laid down in Article 29 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in


title: Case T-249/02: Action brought on 14 August 2002 by Ricostruzione Industriale (IRI) SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/36               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Gonçalves, residing in Viana do Castelo, represented by João               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dias Gonçalves, lawyer.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     in the alternative, declare, under Article 241 of the
                                                                                Treaty, unlawful and inapplicable Article 22 of Regulation
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                        No 4253/88 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of
      compensate him at a rate to be set by the Court but at no                  Regulation No 1866/90;
      less than EUR 1 016 200;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs;
—     order the Commission to publish the order against it in
      the European daily and weekly newspapers with the                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      greatest circulation.
                                                                           The present action has been brought against Commission
                                                                           Decision of 31 March 2000, 004484, fixing the final amount
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            in respect of the files ‘Public Bodies’ — P.O. 901010 I1,
                                                                           906022 I1, 906030 I6 and 936030 I6, concerning contri-
                                                                           butions by the European Social Fund. That decision reduced
                                                                           the ESF assistance initially granted to Italy by Decisions of
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges errors in the
                                                                           12 December 1990, C(90) 3017 and of 17 December 1990,
tests in General Competition COM/A/6/01, irregularities in
                                                                           C(90) 2682 and C(90) 2746, adopted pursuant to Article 14(3)
the marking of the tests, infringement of the rules of the
                                                                           of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December
competition, of the general principles of transparency, neu-
                                                                           1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation
trality and impartiality, and failure to treat the candidates
equally.                                                                   (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of
                                                                           the different Structural Funds between themselves and with
                                                                           the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                           existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1), in
In the applicant’s view, his legitimate professional expectations          respect of the financing of operational programmes concerning
were thus prejudiced, so that annulment of the competition
                                                                           Objectives 3 and 4, actions of the Economic Public Bodies to
would not suffice to make good the damage suffered. He                     be undertaken in the southern-central and southern regions,
therefore asks for the material and non-material damage                    and relating to structural action by the Bodies themselves in
suffered by him as a result of its conduct to be compensated,              the regions covered by Objective 1.
in particular loss of earnings, including the benefits which the
applicant should have obtained in all likelihood or probability.
                                                                           In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     infringement of the rights of the defence, since at no time
                                                                                during the administrative procedure was it given an
                                                                                opportunity to make its views known either to the
                                                                                national authorities or to the Commission itself.
Action brought on 14 August 2002 by Ricostruzione                          —     misapplication of the relevant legislation, in particular of
Industriale (IRI) SpA against Commission of the European                         the provisions on ECU/national currency exchange rates
                           Communities                                           to be applied for the purpose of determining the avail-
                                                                                ability of financing for individual operational pro-
                                                                                grammes within the framework of the ESF, the initial
                         (Case T-249/02)
                                                                                request having been submitted in the national currency,
                                                                                which led to a reduction by comparison with the
                         (2002/C 233/63)                                         maximum payable amount under the original decision
                                                                                granting the funds.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     the existence of manifest errors of assessment in
                                                                                implementing a number of deductions on final settlement
                                                                                of the operational programme which is covered by the
                                                                                contested decision. In particular, it contains a number of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        computational errors committed by the national auth-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       ority, when it drew up the request for the balance, which
European Communities on 14 August 2002 by Ricostruzione                          did not carry out the checks which it was required to do
Industriale (IRI) SpA, represented by Gian Michele Roberti,                      under the relevant Community legislation regarding ESF
Alessandra Franchi and Roberto De Lisa, lawyers.                                 assistance.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/37
In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principles               an appropriate and equitable rate in the view of the Court
of equality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate                    and order the defendant to pay the costs.
expectations.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The purpose of these proceedings is to obtain a declaration
Action brought on 20 August 2002 by Autosalone Ispra                       that the EAEC is liable in delict or tort in its own right and/or
  snc against Commission of the European Communities                       jointly and/or severally with other bodies which may be found
                                                                           liable for the events which took place in Ispra on 3 May 2002
                         (Case T-250/02)                                   and the damage suffered as a result. The applicant recalls that
                                                                           on that date it rained extremely heavily in the municipality of
                                                                           Ispra. The premises of the applicant was unexpectedly flooded
                         (2002/C 233/64)
                                                                           following the overflowing of the sewer belonging to the Joint
                                                                           Research Centre of the EAEC-Euratom.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The applicant points to the danger posed by that sewer and to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  its obvious insufficient capacity to carry off water. The
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 proprietors moreover negligently, recklessly and incom-
European Communities on 20 August 2002 by Autosalone                       petently failed over the years to provide maintenance intended
Ispra snc, represented by Barbara Casu, lawyer.                            to prevent a recurrence and thus undermined also the safety
                                                                           of the adjacent population.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           On the basis of those considerations the applicant takes the
—    order the EAEC-Euratom to compensate Autosalone Ispra                 view that the Community has incurred non-contractual liability
     snc for the all the damage suffered and to be suffered at             under Article 188(2) of the EAEC Treaty.


title: Case T-485/12: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/25

         Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO)
   (Case T-485/12) (1)

   2013/C 164/43
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/1

         2009/C 129/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

      OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

      OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-436/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhänger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2008 — Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH v Finanzamt Linz

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhänger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2008 — Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH v Finanzamt Linz
   (Case C-436/08)
   (2009/C 19/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhänger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Linz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law preclude a national authority — in order to avoid discriminating against foreign equity holdings which, unlike domestic (Austrian) equity holdings, are not tax exempt under legislation until the size of the equity holding reaches 25 % (under present legislation 10 %) — from applying the credit method because the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) has ruled that this outcome is closest to the (hypothetical) intention of the legislature, whilst tax exemption would be granted if the discriminatory 25 % (10 %) threshold for foreign equity holdings were simply not applied?

               2.

               Does Community law preclude: the general exemption of domestic equity holdings whilst the credit method is applied to foreign equity holdings of less than 25 % (10 %) and shareholders are faced with the impossible or disproportionately costly task of adducing evidence of a previous foreign charge to (corporation) tax; or

                           —

                           the grant of exemption to domestic equity holdings of less than 25 % (10 %) whilst the credit method is applied to foreign equity holdings of less than 25 % (10 %) and shareholders are charged with the impossible or disproportionately costly task of adducing evidence; or

                           —

                           the general exemption of domestic equity holdings and of foreign equity holdings of 25 % (10 %) or more whilst the credit method is applied to foreign equity holdings of less than 25 % (10 %) and shareholders are charged with the impossible or disproportionately costly task of adducing evidence?

                           2.1

                           If the answer to the second question should be in the negative: Does Community law preclude the imposition of an obligation on a taxpayer to adduce evidence of a previous foreign charge to (corporation) tax so as to obtain relief from double economic taxation even though the production of such evidence is an impossible or disproportionately costly task, when it could be produced by the authority applying the Directive on mutual assistance?

               3.

               Does Community law preclude a provision whereby the credit method is to apply to non-member-country equity holdings of less than 25 % (10 %) which fall within the scope of free movement of capital where the production of evidence of payment of a previous foreign charge to (corporation) tax is an impossible or disproportionately costly task because of the small size of the equity holdings, whilst provision is made for the exemption method to apply to domestic equity holdings in general — that is to say, irrespective of the size of the equity holdings — and relief from double economic taxation is therefore obtained in any event?

                           3.1

                           If the answer to the third question should be in the affirmative: Does Community law preclude the refusal of exemption for income from non-member-country equity holdings where the size of the equity holding is less than 25 % (10 %) even though exemption for income from equity holdings of more than 25 % (10 %) is not linked to satisfaction of particular requirements compliance with which could be examined only by obtaining information from the competent authorities of the country concerned and exemption is granted in such cases without any other conditions being attached?

                           3.2

                           If the answer to the third question should be in the negative: Does Community law preclude the refusal of a credit for foreign corporation tax for income from non-member-country equity holdings where the size of the equity holding is less than 25 % (10 %) even though tax exemption for income from holdings of more than 25 % (10 %) is not linked to satisfaction of particular requirements compliance with which could be examined only by obtaining information from the competent authorities of the country concerned and exemption is granted in such cases without any other conditions being attached?


title: Case T-138/08: Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/33

         Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission
   (Case T-138/08)
   (2008/C 142/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd (Lifford, Ireland), Ocean Trawlers Limited (Killybegs, Ireland), Mullglen Limited (Balbriggan, Ireland), Eamon McHugh (Killybegs, Ireland), Joseph Doherty (Burtonport, Ireland), Brendan Gill (Lifford, Ireland), Eileen Oglesby (Burtonport, Ireland), Noel McGing (Killybegs, Ireland), Larry Murphy (Castletownbere, Ireland), Thomas Flaherty (Aran Islands, Ireland), Pauric Conneely (Claregalway, Ireland), Island Trawlers Limited (Killybegs, Ireland), Cathal Boyle (Killybegs, Ireland), Eugene Hannigan (Milford, Ireland), Peter McBride (Downings, Ireland), Hugh McBride (Downings, Ireland), Patrick Fitzpatrick (Aran Islands, Ireland), Patrick O'Malley (Galway, Ireland), Cecil Sharkey (Clogherhead, Ireland) (represented by: A. Collins, SC, N. Travers, Barrister, D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the Commission to pay the following sums (excluding interest), increased by the costs of borrowing, further up-to-date particulars of which will be provided at the oral hearing, by way of damages to each of the applicants:
               Pelagic

                     —
                     Cavankee Fishing Company 2 748 276,00 EUR

                     —
                     Ocean Trawlers Ltd 6 740 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Mullglen Ltd. 2 690 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Eamon McHugh 3 036 187,00 EUR

                     —
                     Joseph Doherty 2 640 408,00 EUR

                     —
                     Brendan Gill 2 717 665,00 EUR

                     —
                     Eileen Oglesby 2 994 349,00 EUR

                     —
                     Noel McGing 2 444 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Larry Murphy 4 150 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Thomas Flaherty 2 140 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Pauric Conneely 1 930 000,00 EUR
               Polyvalent

                     —
                     Island Trawlers Limited 672 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Cathal Boyle 651 200,00 EUR

                     —
                     Eugene Hannigan 125 000,00 EUR

                     —
                     Peter McBride 106 848,00 EUR

                     —
                     Hugh McBride 106 848,00 EUR

                     —
                     Partick Fitzpatrick 177 573,00 EUR

                     —
                     Patrick O'Malley

                     (a)
                     ‘Capal Ban’ 205 698,00 EUR

                     (b)
                     ‘Capal Or’ 496 800,00 EUR

                     —
                     Cecil Sharkey 205 697,88 EUR

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicants are bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the losses they claim to have suffered as a result of the Commission's Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests submitted by the Member States (1) in so far as it provided for the rejection of the request by Ireland in respect of the applicants' vessels. This decision was partially annulled by the Court's judgment of 13 June 2006 (2).
   The applicants state in support of their contentions that in adopting the annulled decision the Commission breached a number of superior rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals by grave and manifest disregard of the discretion conferred upon the Commission by Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413/EC (3) as found by the Court in its judgment in the Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03. The applicants claim that the Commission also infringed: the principle of equal treatment, the principle of care and sound administration, the freedom to pursue a trade or profession and the principle of proportionality. They claim that in such circumstances, the mere infringement of Community law establishes a sufficiently serious breach of law.
   Furthermore, the applicants claim that they have suffered and continue to suffer substantial loss and damage as a direct consequence of the Commission adopting the annulled decision as they were required to purchase on the market tonnage to replace safety tonnage requested but not granted and, for some applicants, as regards to the losses flowing from days lost at sea. Therefore, the applicants claim that their damage is actual and certain.
   As proof of the existence of a causal connection between the conduct and damage at issue, the applicants state that if the Commission had not acted unlawfully in refusing properly to consider the applications for safety tonnage submitted by the applicants, none of them would have been required to purchase additional tonnage.

      (1)  Decision C(2003) 1113 final on the requests received by the Commission to increase the fourth multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP IV) objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48).

      (2)  Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03, Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ L 175, p. 27).