title: Joined Cases C-158/04 and C-159/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon — Greece) — Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon (C-158/04), Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon (C-159/04) (Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of frozen bake-off products)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon — Greece) — Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon (C-158/04), Carrefour Marinopoulos AE v Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon (C-159/04)
   (Joined Cases C-158/04 and C-159/04) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of frozen ‘bake-off’ products)
   (2006/C 281/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon — Greece
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE (C-158/04), Carrefour Marinopoulos AE (C-159/04)

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio, Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon — Marketing of ‘bake-off’ bakery products — Requirement for a licence — Compatibility with Article 28 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the sale of ‘bake-off’ products subject to the same requirements as those applicable to the full manufacturing and marketing procedure for traditional bread and bakery products.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2006.


title: Case F-58/07: Action brought on 16 June 2007 — Collotte v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/50

         Action brought on 16 June 2007 — Collotte v Commission
   (Case F-58/07)
   (2007/C 199/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pascal Collotte (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision taken not to include the applicant's name on the promotions list for promotion from A*11 to A*12 for the ‘2006 promotion exercise’ and, consequently, annul the decision not to promote him, as published in Administrative Notices No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, as damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and in respect of the adverse effect on the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant — a former member of the temporary staff who was appointed an official in grade A*11 from 16 April 2004, following his success in an internal competition — was considered ineligible for promotion under the 2006 promotion exercise, because (i) he had not demonstrated his ability to work in a third language, in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and (ii) he was not entitled to benefit from the exception designed for officials who already had two years' experience in their existing grade as at 1 April 2006.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and that the administration committed manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that, under the transitional provisions of Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulation ought not to have been applied to the 2006 promotion exercise, especially since the rules for implementing that provision were finalised only in December 2006. As it was not until August 2006 that the applicant was informed that the provision at issue applied to his case, he maintains that he did not have access to the training necessary to enable him to acquire the ability to work in a third language within a reasonable period of time.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, infringement of the principles of good administration and sound management and the existence of a misuse of powers. The applicant submits in particular that the administration did not have the right to apply Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations to him at the last minute.
   The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The Commission's departments, the applicant submits, gave him precise and consistent assurances as to the non-applicability to his case of the new requirement imposed by Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment of staff, non-discrimination and proportionality. The applicant claims that he was placed at a disadvantage in relation to other members of the temporary staff, who, following success in an internal competition entitling them to establishment, had already been appointed officials by 1 April 2004, unlike the applicant.


title: Case C-132/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2015 in Case T-725/14 Aalberts Industries v European Union

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Appeal brought on 19 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2015 in Case T-725/14 Aalberts Industries v European Union
   (Case C-132/15 P)
   (2015/C 205/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aalberts Industries NV, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2015 in Case T-725/14 Aalberts Industries v European Union in so far as it rejected the two heads of claim of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’) in its application made to the General Court pursuant to Article 114 of its Rules of Procedure and upheld the objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission (‘the Commission’);

               —

               grant the heads of claim referred to and accordingly, delivering final judgment in the case, declare Aalberts Industries’ action for damages to be inadmissible on the ground that it is brought against the CJEU (as the representative of the European Union);

               —

               order Aalberts Industries to pay the costs of the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By order of 13 February 2015, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the application lodged by the CJEU, pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in Case T-725/14 Aalberts Industries v European Union. The application of the CJEU sought a declaration of inadmissibility in respect of Aalberts Industries’ action in so far as it was brought against it as the representative of the European Union; that action was also served on the Commission on the same basis. Aalberts Industries sought, with its action, to engage the non-contractual liability of the European Union in order to obtain compensation for the damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-385/06 Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission. In the order of 13 February 2015, the General Court, differently to how the CJEU had argued and accepting the position maintained by the Commission, came to the conclusion that it was for the CJEU and not the Commission to represent the European Union in that action.
   The CJEU now brings an appeal before the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the CJEU, by which it seeks to have that order set aside to the extent that it dismissed the CJEU’s application. In support of that appeal, the CJEU claims, first, that the rules on representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies have not been observed and, second, that the obligation to state reasons has not been complied with.
   In the context of the
         first ground of appeal, concerning non-observance of the rules on the representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies
      , the CJEU submits that, in view of the fact that there is no express rule governing representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies in actions brought pursuant to Article 268 TFEU with a view to engaging the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the rules governing such representation must be derived from the general principles applicable to the exercise of the judicial function, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principles relating to judicial independence and impartiality.
   That first ground of appeal of the CJEU comprises two parts, that is to say, non-observance of the requirements of the principle of the sound administration of justice and non-observance of the requirements of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality.
   In the context of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that the General Court’s finding that it is for the CJEU to represent the European Union in the context of the abovementioned action for damages is clearly based on the case-law originating in the judgment in Werhahn Hansamühle and Others v Council and Commission (63/72 to 69/72, EU:C:1973:121; ‘Werhahn and Others’). The approach taken in that case-law implies that, where the liability of the Community (now the European Union) is engaged by reason of the conduct of one of its institutions, it should be represented before the EU Courts by the institution or institutions against which the matter giving rise to liability is alleged. The CJEU takes the view that that approach should not be applied to the present case because it would, by reason of several factors, lead to a situation that would appear to be at variance with the interest of a sound administration of justice, which, according to the express wording of Werhahn and Others, is the rationale for that solution. In that context, the CJEU also raises, as a subsidiary argument, a failure to have regard to the scope of the first paragraph of Article 317 TFEU and Article 53(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1), on the basis of which the General Court ought to have recognised the principle that compensation such as that claimed in the present case must come from that part of the EU budget which relates to the Commission.
   In the context of the second part of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU, relying in this regard on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 July 2008 in Mihalkov v Bulgaria (application no 67719/01), argues that the General Court failed to take account of the requirements of judicial independence and impartiality when it ruled that the CJEU had to represent the European Union in Aalberts Industries’ action for damages. In view of the fact that, in the present case, first, the matter allegedly giving rise to liability came about in the exercise of judicial functions by a formation of a judicial body and, secondly, the formation that will have to take cognisance of the case (i) belongs to the same judicial body (the General Court) as the formation of the judicial body being held responsible for the matter giving rise to liability and (ii) is an integral part of the defendant party in this case (the CJEU), with which the judges of that formation are professionally affiliated, the abovementioned requirements are compromised, a fortiori where, as the General Court has held, damages such as those here being claimed must come from that part of the budget which relates to the CJEU.
   Accordingly, the CJEU argues in its
         second ground of appeal
       that, in the contested order, there has been a
         failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons
      , since that order contains no specific rebuttal of the argument concerning the scope of a series of judgments of the Court of Justice — including the judgments in Groupe Gascogne v Commission (C-58/12 P, EU:C:2013:770), Gascogne Sack v Commission (C-40/12 P, EU:C:2013:768) and Kendrion v Commission (C-50/12 P, EU:C:2013:771) — that the CJEU had raised before the General Court.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


title: Case T-543/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Grau Ferrer v OHIM — Rubio Ferrer (Bugui va)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/18

         Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Grau Ferrer v OHIM — Rubio Ferrer (Bugui va)
   (Case T-543/12)
   2013/C 55/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Xavier Grau Ferrer (Caldes de Montbui, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer (Xeraco, Spain), Alberto Rubio Ferrer (Xeraco)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 11 October 2012 in Cases R 274/2011-4 and R 520/2011-4, in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and consequently refuse registration of figurative Community trade mark No 7 338 031‘Bugui va’ in full, for all the goods and services applied for (Classes 31, 35 and 39);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) CTMR.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer and Alberto Rubio Ferrer

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘Bugui va’ for goods and services in Classes 31, 35 and 39 — application for Community trade mark No 7 338 031

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with the word element ‘Bugui’ and figurative Community trade mark with the word element ‘BUGUI De la huerta a casa FRUITS FROM THE SPANISH VEGETABLE GARDEN’, for goods and services in classes 31, 32 and 39

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected in full

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2868/95


title: Case T-517/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Effect on trade between Member States — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission
      (Case T-517/09) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Effect on trade between Member States - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary - Duty to state reasons)
      (2015/C 016/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-165/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12: Ryanair Ltd. v European Commission

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/20

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12: Ryanair Ltd. v European Commission
   (Case C-165/15 P)
   (2015/C 205/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd., Ireland, Aer Lingus Ltd.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 in Case T-500/12 Ryanair v Commission in so far as it held that Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (1) was annulled in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision; and

               —

               reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;
               alternatively,

                           —

                           refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

                           —

                           reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that by creating a new economic test to be applied when determining the amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries of State aid consisting of a tax measure fixing a lower rate by reference to a standard rate, the General Court violated Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2).

      (1)  OJ L 119, p. 30.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-129/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Germany) — Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg (Regional aid scheme — Investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural products — Commission decision — Incompatibility with the internal market — Abolition of incompatible aid — Time at which aid is granted — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Germany) — Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH v Finanzamt Magdeburg
   (Case C-129/12) (1)

   (Regional aid scheme - Investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural products - Commission decision - Incompatibility with the internal market - Abolition of incompatible aid - Time at which aid is granted - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2013/C 156/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Magdeburger Mühlenwerke GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Magdeburg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt — Interpretation of Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes (OJ 1999 L 60, p. 61) — Obligation on Germany to repeal the existing aid schemes which are inconsistent with the framework proposed by the Commission in its communication concerning such aid — Temporal scope of that obligation — Possibility for the Member State concerned to not repeal the aid in question for investments envisaged before the expiration of the period for the implementation of the decision and before the publication of the intention of the Member State to repeal the aid for such investments where the investment in question has been made after the implementation of the decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2 of Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes must be interpreted as precluding the grant of investment aid concerning milling in relation to which the binding investment decision was made before the expiration of the period afforded to the Federal Republic of Germany to comply with that decision or before the publication in the Bundessteuerblatt of the measures taken to that effect, when the delivery of the capital asset and the determination and disbursement of the subsidy took place only after the expiration of that period or that publication, if the time at which an investment subsidy is considered to be granted is only after the expiration of that period. It is for the referring court to determine when an investment subsidy, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be considered to be granted, by taking account of all the conditions laid down by national law for obtaining the aid in question and ensuring that the prohibition laid down in Article 2(1) of Decision 1999/183 is not circumvented.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October 1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV (Case C-392/98) (1999/C 1/09)

text:
C 1/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
employed in that State for at least three years; however, it       on 1 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
is not required that the parent in question should still           Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal
work or be resident in the Member State in question at the         Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
time when his child wishes to gain access to the                   servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
employment market there.                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October                failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,
1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac              order to comply with Commission Directive 95/12/EC
Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and                     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive
                         2. Layher BV                                  92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of
                                                                       household washing machines (1), the Kingdom of
                      (Case C-392/98)
                                                                       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                        (1999/C 1/09)                                  directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
30 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as               Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first
Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1.               paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV on the                   are required to adopt the necessary measures in order to
following questions:                                               implement directives addressed to them prior to the expiry
                                                                   of the time-limit prescribed for doing so. The time-limit in
1. Does the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to                question expired on 1 March 1996 but the Kingdom of
    interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement also               Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
    extend to the provisions of that article which do not
    concern provisional measures to prevent infringement           (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
    of trade-mark rights?
2. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
    Article 50(6), have direct effect?
3. Where an action lies under national civil law against           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    the copying of an industrial design, on the basis of the       Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of
    general rules concerning wrongful acts, and in                 that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of
    particular those relating to unlawful competition, must        Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
    the protection thus afforded to the holder of the right                                   Paderborn
    be regarded as an intellectual property right' within
    the meaning of Article 50(1) of the TRIPs Agreement?                                  (Case C-396/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/11)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities by an order of the
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                            Belgium                                6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
                      (Case C-394/98)
                                                                   Paderborn on the following questions:
                        (1999/C 1/10)
                                                                   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               C-37/95 (1) Ghent Coal Terminal NV, in which reference is
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            made to Case C-110/94 (2) INZO), a taxable person can


title: Case T-338/17: Action brought on 2017 — Air France v Commission

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/46

         Action brought on 2017 — Air France v Commission
   (Case T-338/17)
   (2017/C 277/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société Air France (Tremblay-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the entirety of European Commission Decision No C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017, Case AT.39258 — Airfreight, as far as it is concerned, and the reasons given for its operative part, on the basis of its first, second and third pleas in law;

               —

               in the alternative, if the General Court does not annul Decision No C(2017) 1742 final in its entirety on the basis of its first, second and third pleas in law:

                           —

                           first,

                                       —

                                       annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that the single and continuous infringement established against it is based on inadmissible evidence submitted by Lufthansa in connection with its application for immunity from fines, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its first plea in law,

                                       —

                                       annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it excludes from the scope of the single and continuous infringement established against it the airlines referred to in the reasons for the decision as being involved in the infringement, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its second plea in law,

                                       —

                                       annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(2)(c) and 1(3)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that finds that the single and continuous infringement established against it includes the airfreight services within the EEA (EEA inbound traffic), and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its third plea in law,

                           —

                           secondly, annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it finds that the refusal to commission the freight forwarders constitutes a separate element of the single and continuous infringement established against it, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its fourth plea in law,

                           —

                           and, thirdly, annul Article 3(b) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000 on the ground that the calculation of that fine includes its freight tariffs and 50 % of its revenue in respect of freight services into the EEA (EEA inbound revenue) (in accordance with its fifth plea in law), overestimates the seriousness of the infringement established against it (in accordance with its sixth plea in law), establishes an erroneous duration of infringement against it (in accordance with its seventh plea in law) and applies an insufficient fine reduction under the regulatory regimes (in accordance with its eighth plea in law), and the reasons given for it, and reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, that fine to an appropriate amount;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the 2002 Leniency Notice and of its principles of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and non-discrimination between Air France and Lufthansa affecting the admissibility of documents submitted in connection with Lufthansa’s application for immunity. This plea in law is divided into four parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the admissibility of the first plea in law;

                           —

                           Second part, based on the withdrawal of immunity granted to Lufthansa;

                           —

                           Third part, alleging the inadmissibility of the evidence adduced in its application for immunity;

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging that the inadmissibility of the evidence adduced by Lufthansa in its application for immunity should necessarily lead to the annulment of the decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and of protection against arbitrary action by the Commission resulting from the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which took part in the practices. That plea in law consists of two parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the argument that the exclusion of airlines that took part in the practices from the operative part of the decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons;

                           —

                           Second part, based on the argument that the exclusion of airlines that took part in the practices from the operative part of the decision is vitiated by an infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and of protection against arbitrary action by the Commission.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules delimiting the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission, which, it claims, was committed as a result of the inclusion of the EEA inbound traffic in the single and continuous infringement. This plea in law is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the fact that the practices relating to the EEA inbound traffic were not implemented within the EEA;

                           —

                           Second part: the Commission has not, it claims, established the existence of qualified effects within the EEA connected with the practices relating to the EEA inbound traffic.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging contradictory reasoning and manifest error of assessment which vitiates the finding that the refusal to commission the freight forwarders constitutes a separate element of the single and continuous infringement. That plea in law consists of two parts:

                           —

                           First part, according to which that finding is vitiated by contradictory reasoning;

                           —

                           Second part, according to which that finding is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, relating to the incorrect nature of the value of sales considered for the calculation of Air France’s fine and which is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the inclusion of the tariffs in the value of sales is based on contradictory reasoning, several errors of law and a manifest error of assessment;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the inclusion of 50 % of the EEA inbound revenue in the value of sales infringes the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the principle of ne bis in idem.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging erroneous assessment of the seriousness of the infringement, and consisting of two parts:

                           —

                           First part, relying on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices was based on several manifest errors of assessment and an infringement of the principles of proportionality of penalties and equal treatment;

                           —

                           Second part, based on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices resulted from the inclusion in the scope of the infringement contacts relating to practices implemented outside of the EEA, in breach of the rules of territorial jurisdiction of the Commission.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging incorrect calculation of the duration of the infringement.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and the insufficiency of the 15 % reduction granted by the Commission under the regulatory regimes.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995, in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long (Case C-295/95)

text:
28 . 10. 95         I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/5
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal                    fresh ruling on Mr Ojha 's claims for compensation for
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the above decision ,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               proceedings, and of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance .
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     measures necessary to implement Council Directive
     92/109/EEC (') of 14 December 1992 on the                         1 . Error of law and reasoning as regards the extent of the
                                                                           Commission 's obligation to state reasons , in so far as the
     manufacture and the placing on the market of certain                  Court of First Instance held that sufficient reasons were
     substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
                                                                           stated for the contested Commission decision
     drugs and psychotropic substances, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community                  ( paragraphs 59 to 62 of the judgment );
     law,                                                              2 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance held that the Commission had not infringed the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                            appellant's defence rights by failing to communicate to
                                                                           him the documents on which the contested decision was
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        based;
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which states that a directive is         3 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved,                Instance upheld the Commission 's argument that the
entails for Member States an obligation to comply with the                 mere existence of complaints against the appellant,
time limits laid down in directives for their transposition . In           irrespective of whether they were well founded, justified
the present case, the prescribed period expired on 1 July                  the reassignment of the appellant to Brussels in the
1993 , at which time the Italian Republic had still not                    interests of the service;
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive
92 / 109/EEC .                                                         4 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance accepted the Commission 's argument that the
(•) OJ No L 370 , 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                                contested decision could be justified by the interests of
                                                                           the service, having regard to an allegedly tense situation
                                                                           within the service ;
                                                                       5 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance did not take the personal interests of the
Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha                          appellant into account;
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in               6 . Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in
Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European                     that the Court of First Instance allowed documents not
                          Communities                                      forming part of an official 's personal file to be used
                      ( Case C-294/95 P)                                   against him.
                         ( 95/C 286/ 10 )
An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 12 September 1995 by Girish                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit
Ojha , represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                  Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995 , in the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         case of Jackie Farrell against James Long
at the Chambers of L. Friden, Avenue Guillaume, against the
                                                                                ( Case C-295 /95 )
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case                                             ( 95 /C 286/ 11
T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European
Communities .                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Dublin Circuit
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Family Court of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 15 September 1995 , for a preliminary
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             ruling in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long, on the
     the European Communities of 6 July 1995 in Case                   following question :
     T-36/93 ,
                                                                       Do the provisions of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Convention on
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 October 1992 ,                Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
     reassigning the appellant together with his post from the         Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on 27 September
      Commission delegation in Dacca to the seat of the                 1968 require as a condition precedent to the institution of
      Commission in Brussels,                                          maintenance proceedings in the Irish Courts by an applicant
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 10 . 95
who is domiciled in Ireland against a respondent who is                Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously                 the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
obtained in order for maintenance against the                          Hausen , Legal Adviser, with an address for service in
respondent ?                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                        time lmits all the measures necessary in order to
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive
                             of Germany                                      78/659/EEC (') of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh
                        ( Case C-297/95 )                                    waters needing protection or improvement in order to
                           ( 95/C 286/ 12 )                                  support fish life and Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                             Directive 79/923/EEC ( 2 ) of 30 October 1979 on the
                                                                             quality required of shellfish waters, the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          EC Treaty;
Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                      2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                        costs .
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            C-297/95 (■'); the time limits expired on 20 July 1980 and
     time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply          5 November 1981 respectively . As regards in particular the
     with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991                obligation to set values under Article 3 of each Directive, the
     concerning urban waste water treatment ( 1 ), the Federal         need for binding national rules arises from the fact that that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          measure is intended to improve the quality of edible fish and
     under the EC Treaty;                                              shellfish products and thereby indirectly to contribute to the
                                                                       protection of the health of humans .
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                           (') OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p. 47 .
                                                                       (') See page 6 of this Official Journal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is apparent from the mandatory nature of directives, as
laid down by the third paragraph of Article 1 89 and the first
paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, that a Member State
to which a directive is addressed is obliged to transpose the
provisions of the directive into national law in such a way
that they take full practical effect from the expiry of the time       Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission
limit for transposition . That time limit expired on 30 June                  of the European Communities against the United
 1993 , but the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                                             Kingdom
adopt all the necessary national measures .                                                      ( Case C-300/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/ 14 )
 (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
                                                                        the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service
 Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                  in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 of the European Communities against the Federal Republic               Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                              of Germany
                         ( Case C-298/95 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 95/C 286/13 )
                                                                        1 . declare that in failing to take all the measures necessary
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          1985 concerning the approximation of the laws,


title: Case C-443/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 13 September 2001 in the case of Poul Nørgaard v Skatteministeriet

text:
2.2.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 31/5
Action brought on 15 November 2001 by the Com-                         where possible — an internal working conditions service must
mission of the European Communities against the                        be established is entirely immaterial, inasmuch as that rule
                 Kingdom of the Netherlands                            already follows from the combined provisions of Article 7(1)
                                                                       and 7(3) and there was thus no need to reiterate it in
                                                                       Article 7(6).
                        (Case C-441/01)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                         (2002/C 31/09)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 November 2001 by the Commission of the European                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
Communities, represented by H. van Vliet and H. Kreppel,               by order of 13 September 2001 in the case of Poul
acting as Agents.                                                                        Nørgaard v Skatteministeriet
                                                                                (Case C-443/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 31/10)
—     Declare that, by authorising employers freely to choose
      between internal and external health and safety services,
      the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the EC Treaty and under Article 7(3) of        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures         European Communities by order of 13 September 2001 by
      to encourage improvements in the safety and health of            the Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was
      workers at work;                                                 received at the Court Registry on 19 November 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-
                                                                       teriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following questions:
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs
      of the proceedings.
                                                                       Question 1
                                                                       Must Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1)
                                                                       be construed as meaning that a short-term letting such as
                                                                       described in the order is covered by the phrase ‘provision of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        accommodation ... in the hotel sector or in sectors with a
                                                                       similar function’?
                                                                       Question 2
The Netherlands authorities err in challenging the Com-
mission’s interpretation of Article 7(3) to the effect that the        If lettings of immovable property for holiday purposes for
Directive does not confer on employers, in the organisation of         fixed periods of less than one month and divisible by one week
protective and preventive measures, the choice between using           may be covered by the phrase ‘provision of accommodation ...
competent members of their own staff and enlisting competent           in the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function’, can
external services, but rather establishes a hierarchy between          Member States then define the term ‘sectors with a similar
those two solutions with the objective criterion of whether or         function’ on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of
not there are staff in the undertaking having the necessary            objective criteria, such as, for instance, whether the immovable
competence to carry out activities in the area of protection           property is separately registered, whether the immovable
against and prevention of occupational risks. It is clear from         property is connected to facilities that are shared by other
the structure and wording of Article 7 of the Directive, in            properties, and whether services such as the provision of bed
particular Article 7(1), that the Community legislature has            linen, breakfast, cleaning and suchlike are provided?
provided that the employer must, in principle, designate
persons within the undertaking to perform the tasks in
question. It is evident from the connection between
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Article 7(2), second sentence, and Article 7(3) that, even if an           harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
employer might prefer to engage an outside company and                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
require his employees to work exclusively for the purposes of              basis of assessment.
the undertaking, he may not do so but must rather designate
employees and allow those employees the time to perform
their tasks. The fact that Article 7(6) does not provide that —


title: Case T-154/10: Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/43

      Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission
      (Case T-154/10)
      (2010/C 161/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul in its entirety the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 133 Final of 26 January 2010 declaring the implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste under the provisions of French law concerning the legal consequences of its status as a legal entity governed by public law, the equivalent of a State-owned industrial and commercial establishment, to be State aid incompatible with the Common Market (State aid No C 56/2007 (formerly E 15/2005)).
      In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law alleging:

                  —

                  error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The Commission failed to comply with the evidential rules relating to State aid with regard both to the burden of proof and the standard of proof;

                  —

                  errors in fact and in law in that the Commission found the existence of an implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste;

                  —

                  error in applying the concept of advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. First, the Commission erred in concluding that a guarantee created an advantage in favour of La Poste and, secondly, the Commission erred in considering that La Poste’s positive rating was a result of the existence of the alleged guarantee.


title: Case C-421/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Primus SA v Jesús Gutiérrez García (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Unfair terms — Mortgage loan agreements — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Limitation period — Function of the national courts — Res judicata)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Primus SA v Jesús Gutiérrez García
   (Case C-421/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Unfair terms - Mortgage loan agreements - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Limitation period - Function of the national courts - Res judicata))
   (2017/C 104/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Primus SA

      Defendant: Jesús Gutiérrez García

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as the Fourth Transitional Provision of Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent) of 14 May 2013, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time limit of one month on consumers, calculated from the day following the publication of that law, within which to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

               2.

               Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Article 207 of Ley 1/2000, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 on the Civil Procedure Code), of 7 January 2000, as amended by Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent), of 14 May 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 7/2013, de medidas urgentes de naturaleza tributaria, presupuestaria y de fomento de la investigación, el desarrollo y la innovación (Decree-Law 7/2013 on urgent fiscal and budgetary measures and promoting research, development and innovation), of 28 June 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 11/2014, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal (Decree-Law 11/2014 on urgent measures in the area of bankruptcy), of 5 September 2014, which prohibits national courts from examining of their own motion the unfairness of contractual terms where a ruling has already been given on the lawfulness of the terms of the contract, taken as a whole, with regard to that directive in a decision which has become res judicata.
               By contrast, where there are one or more contractual terms the potential unfair nature of which has not been examined during an earlier judicial review of the contract in dispute which has been closed by a decision which has become res judicata, Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, before which a consumer has properly lodged an objection, is required to assess the potential unfairness of those terms, whether at the request of the parties or of its own motion where it is in possession of the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose.

               3.

               Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the examination of the potential unfairness of a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer requires it to be determined whether that term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under a contract to the detriment of the consumer. That examination must be carried out in the light of national rules which, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, are applicable, the means which the consumer has at his disposal under national law to bring an end to the use of that type of term, the nature of the goods or services covered by the contract at issue and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract;

                           —

                           where the national court considers that a contractual term relating to the calculation of ordinary interest, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that directive, it is required to examine whether that term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive. In the context of that examination, it is the duty of the referring court, inter alia, to compare the method of calculation of the rate of ordinary interest laid down in that term and the actual sum resulting from that rate with the methods of calculation generally used, the statutory interest rate and the interest rates applied on the market at the date of conclusion of the agreement at issue in the main proceedings for a loan of a comparable sum and term to those of the loan agreement under consideration; and

                           —

                           as regards the assessment by a national court of the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, it is for the referring court to examine whether the right of the seller or supplier to call in the totality of the loan is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an obligation which is of essential importance in the context of the contractual relationship in question, whether that right is provided for in cases in which such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan, whether that right derogates from the applicable common law rules, where specific contractual provisions are lacking, and whether national law provides for adequate and effective means enabling the consumer subject to such a term to remedy the effects of the loan being called in.

               4.

               Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation in the case-law of a provision of national law governing accelerated repayment clauses in loan agreements, such as Article 693(2) of Law 1/2000, as amended by Decree-Law 7/2013, which prohibits the national court which has found such a contractual term to be unfair from declaring that term null and void and removing it where the seller or supplier did not in fact apply it, but complied with the requirements laid down in that provision of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-98/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014  — Société Générale v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/36

         Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Société Générale v Commission
   (Case T-98/14)
   2014/C 142/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société Générale SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Zelenko, J. Marthan and D. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2(c) of the European Commission decision No C(2013) 8512 final of 4 December 2013 in the EIRD case in so far as it imposes a fine on Société Générale;

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine imposed by that decision on Société Générale to an appropriate amount;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission in the determination of the method of calculating the values of sales, in so far as the values adopted in the contested decision on the basis of that method do not reflect the respective positions of the banks against which the action has been brought on the relevant market during the infringement period (first part). The applicant submits that the Commission has thereby infringed its duty of diligence (second part) and has infringed the principles of equal treatment (third part) and of the protection of legitimate expectations (fourth part).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons as regards the choice of the method applied by the Commission in order to calculate the value of the sales by the banks against which the action has been brought.

               3.

               Third plea in law, claiming that the General Court should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce the applicant’s fine to an appropriate amount reflecting the respective positions of the banks against which the action has been brought on the relevant market.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-57/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Unemployment benefit - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Social advantage - Discrimination based on nationality - Residence condition)

text:
C 41/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
Commercio con l'Estero Ð on the validity of Council                  (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary ruling in
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                the proceedings pending before that court between H.
common organization of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,               Meints and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
25.2.1993, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/               Visserij Ð on the interpretation of Article 4 of Council
93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                application of social security schemes to employed
into the Community (OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6) and                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/93 of 10 June                    families moving within the Community, as amended and
1993 on transitional measures for the application of the             updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
arrangements for importing bananas into the Community                2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, 2.2.1983, p. 6), and of Article 7
in 1993 (OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 16) Ð the Court (Sixth              of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G.          within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968
Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-             (II), p. 475) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,               C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November               Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
1997, in which it has ruled:                                         L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A.
                                                                     Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                     a judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
1. Consideration of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/
     93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization
     of the market in bananas in the light of the Fourth
     ACP-EEC Convention, signed in LomeÂ                     on
     15 December 1989 and approved by Decision 91/400/               1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
     ECSC, EEC of the Council and the Commission of                       1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     25 February 1991, has revealed no factor of such a                   employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
     kind as to affect its validity.                                      members of their families moving within the
                                                                          Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, does
2. Consideration of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                          not apply to a compensation scheme under which
     No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed
                                                                          agricultural workers, whose contract of employment
     rules for the application of the arrangements for
                                                                          has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of
     importing bananas into the Community in the light of
                                                                          land belonging to their former employer, receive a
     the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention and Regulation
                                                                          benefit in the form of a single payment, the amount of
     (EEC) No 404/93 has revealed no factor of such a
                                                                          which is determined solely by the age of the recipient
     kind as to affect its validity.
                                                                          and which must be repaid if the recipient is
                                                                          reemployed by his former employer within 12 months
(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.                                                    following the termination of his contract of
                                                                          employment.
                                                                     2. A benefit which takes the form of a single payment to
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      agricultural workers whose contract of employment
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                   has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of
                                                                          land belonging to their former employer is to be
                    of 27 November 1997                                   classified as a social advantage within the meaning of
in Case C-57/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
the Nederlandse Raad van State): H. Meints v. Minister                    Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)                       for workers within the Community.
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Unemployment benefit
Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð Social advantage Ð
Discrimination based on nationality Ð Residence
                            condition)                               3. A Member State may not make payment of a social
                                                                          advantage within the meaning of Article 7 (2) of
                          (98/C 41/03)                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 dependent on the
                                                                          condition that recipients be resident within its
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                             territory.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-57/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State


title: Case C-539/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Richard Rodriguez Serin v HOP!-Regional

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Richard Rodriguez Serin v HOP!-Regional
   (Case C-539/16) (1)

   (2017/C 300/33)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-447/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/33

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
   (Case T-447/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-164/09: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Kitou v EDPS (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Kitou v EDPS
   (Case T-164/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 55/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Erasmia Kitou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans and V. Pérez Asinari, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 3 February 2009 in Case No 2008-0600 concerning a complaint brought by Ms Kitou against the intention of the European Commission to reveal personal data.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Removal from the register of C-245/96

text:
No C 252/24            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 8 . 97
         Removal from the register of C-3 13/95 (*)                    removal from the register of Case C-16/96 ( reference for a
                           ( 97/C 252/49 )                             preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Karin
                                                                       Mille-Wilsmann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen .
By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                        (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
Communities has ordered the removal from the register
of Case C-3 13/95 : Commission of the European
Communities v. Italian Republic .
(') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-245/96 ( ')
                                                                                97/C 252/51
                                                                       By order of 15 May 1997 the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-16/96 ( l )                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                           ( 97/C 252/50 )                             removal from the register of Case C-245/96 : Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 14 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  ' (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Fontainebleau (France ), Groupement d'intérêt économique
                         of 12 June 1997                               Pari Mutuel Urbain, established in Paris, Pari Mutuel
                                                                       International established in Paris, represented by Bruno
in Case T-504/93 : Tiercé Landbroke SA v. Commission of                Chain and Jerome Depondt, of the Paris Bar, with an
               the European Communities (')                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Victor Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen — application for
(Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint —                     annulment of the Commission Decision of 24 June 1993
Article 86 — Relevant market — Joint dominant position                 rejecting a complaint lodged by Tiercé Ladbroke SA on
— Refusal to grant a transmission licence — Article 85 (1 )            9 October 1990 (IV/33.699 ) against the principal French
           — Clause prohibiting retransmission)                        sociétes de courses ( horse-racing associations ), Pari Mutuel
                            ( 97/C 252/52 )                            Urbain and Pari Mutuel International, alleging
                                                                       infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty, and
                                                                       for an order requiring the Commission to re-examine
                                                                       that complaint forthwith — the Court of First Instance
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed
                                                                       of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and A.
                                                                       Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
In Case T-504/93 : Tiercé Landbroke SA, established in                 judgment on 12 June 1997, in which it:
Brussels, represented by Jeremy Lever QC, Christopher
Vajda, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and
Stephen Kon, Solicitor, London, with an address for
                                                                        1.  annuls the Commission decision contained in its letter
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy and
Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich, against Commission of '                     of 24 June 1 993 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and                       9 October 1990 (IV/33.699) in so far as it considers
Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ), supported by Société                     that the refusal of the sociétés de courses to grant the
d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de France,                            applicant a licence for the transmission of French races
established in Boulogne-Billancourt ( France ), Société                     in Belgium, as notified to the applicant by a letter
d'encouragement à l'élevage du cheval français,                             from Pari Mutuel Urbain dated 8 August 1990, was
established in Paris, Société sportive d'encouragement,                     the normal consequence of the fact that neither Pari
                                                                            Mutuel Urbain nor the sociétés de courses take bets on
established in Paris, Société de sport de France, established
in Boulogne-Billancourt ( France ), Société des courses de la               the betting market in Belgium, and therefore could not
Côte d'Azur, established in Cagnes-sur-Mer ( France ),                      be the subject of an agreement between the sociétés de
Société des courses du Pays d'Auge, established in                          courses within the meaning of Article 85 (1 ) of the
Deauville ( France ), Société des courses de Compiègne,                     Treaty;
established in Compiègne ( France ), Société des courses de
Dieppe, established in Rouxmesnil-Bouteilles ( France ),
Société des courses de Fontainebleau, established in                    2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: Case F-112/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2008 — Bain and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Remuneration — Correction coefficients — Transfer of part of remuneration out of the country of employment — Pensions — Default proceedings — Temporal application of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure — Pay slips — Plea of illegality)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2008 — Bain and Others v Commission
   (Case F-112/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Remuneration - Correction coefficients - Transfer of part of remuneration out of the country of employment - Pensions - Default proceedings - Temporal application of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure - Pay slips - Plea of illegality)
   (2008/C 142/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants:
      Neil Bain (Brussels, Belgium), Obhijit Chatterjee (Brussels, Belgium), Richard Fordham (Bergen, Netherlands), Roger Hurst (Bergen, Netherlands), (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicants' pay slips for the months of February, March and April 2005, and of all subsequent pay slips, in so far as they apply the allegedly unlawful provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, concerning the transfer of part of remuneration to the official's country of origin (formerly Case T-419/05).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48 of 25.2.2006, p. 36 (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-419/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).