title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 23 July 1998, in the case of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats International Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Case C-436/98)

text:
C 48/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
    providing, in particular, that certain documents must          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    be issued or certified in another Member State, the
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    under Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC.                        so far as it annuls the Commission's decision of 6 April
                                                                       1995;
Ð The provisions on students' resources                            Ð order the applicant to bear Deutsche Post AG's costs.
                                                                   Deutsche Post AG continues to seek the form of order as
                                                                   that sought at first instance, i.e.
    The Commission considers that by requiring students,
    who are citizens of other Member States, and
    members of their family to guarantee to the Italian            Ð to dismiss the IECC's application;
    authorities that they have resources of a certain
    amount and, as regards the means to be used for that           Ð to order the IECC to pay the costs of the proceedings
    purpose, by not clearly leaving students a choice                  including Deutsche Post AG's costs.
    between making a declaration or such alternative
    means as are at least equivalent, and by not allowing          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the declaration to be used where the student is
    accompanied by members of his family, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            The judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the
    Directive 93/96/EEC.                                           Commission's decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                   concerns commercial physical ABA remail is based on an
                                                                   error of law. The Court of First Instance has infringed
(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                    Community law (Article 86 EC Treaty) by finding in
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28.                                    paragraph 105 of its judgment that interceptions of
(3) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59.                                   commercial ABA remail constitute an abuse within the
                                                                   meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
                                                                   (2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche Post
AG against the judgment delivered on 16 September by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
of First Instance of the European Communities in cases             Dublin, by order of that court of 23 July 1998, in the case
T-133/95 (1) and T-204/95 (2) between International                of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and
of the European Communities, supported by, in cases                                            Forestry
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The                                    (Case C-436/98)
         Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste                                       (1999/C 48/20)
                      (Case C-428/98 P)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 48/19)
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                   Dublin, of 23 July 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 3 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                   the case of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September           International Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture,
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                Food and Forestry, on the following questions:
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              1.    Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 (1) and
of the European Communities, supported by, in case                       in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great                       meaning that trimmings of less than 100 grams,
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and                       when rolled up inside a cut of plate and flank from
The Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was                     fresh or chilled hind quarters of adult male cattle,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      which rolled up cut is then wrapped, do or do not
Communities on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche                              qualify for Special Export Refunds pursuant to the
Post AG, Heinrich-von-Stephan-Straûe 1, D-53175 Bonn,                    said Regulation?
represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   2.    Is Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 and in particular
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe.                           Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/11
     [trimmings/detached pieces of meat] of greater than                wrapped pieces of meat contrary to Regulation
     100 grams when rolled up inside a cut of plate or                  (EEC) No 1964/82, do Regulations (EEC) No 565/80
     flank from fresh or chilled hindquarter of adult male              and (EEC) No 3665/87 permit the competent
     cattle, which rolled up cut is then wrapped, do or do              authority to reject the contents of the entire box as
     not qualify for Special Export Refunds pursuant to                 not qualifying for special export refunds and to
     the said Regulation?                                               forfeit the security given for the advance payment
                                                                        made in respect of such box plus 20 %?
3.   Is Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 and in particular
                                                                   6.1. Where upon an examination of one or more boxes
     Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that
                                                                        of meat placed in store under Regulation (EEC)
     each piece or cut of plate and flank must be
                                                                        No 2675/88 for the purpose of obtaining private
     individually wrapped or that in addition, trimmings
                                                                        storage aid, it is discovered that the contents of such
     may be rolled up inside a piece or cut of plate and
                                                                        boxes include trimmings rolled within plate and
     flank and such rolled up piece or cut may then be
                                                                        flank or mid rib and if the inclusion of such
     wrapped?
                                                                        trimmings contrary to Article 4(4) of Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 2675/88, do Commission Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 2220/85 (5) and Regulation (EEC) No
4.   Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 (2) and                  2675/88 permit the Competent Authority to reject
     in particular Article 4(4) thereof, to be construed as             the contents of the entire box for the purposes of
     permitting or not permitting the storage of                        private storage aid and to forfeit the security for the
     trimmings of less than 100 grams resulting from the                advanced payment made in respect of such box plus
     cutting and de-boning for the purpose of obtaining                 20 %?
     private storage aid under contracts entered into
     pursuant to the said Regulation?
                                                                   6.2. Where upon an examination of one or more boxes
                                                                        of meat placed in store under Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 2675/88 for the purpose of obtaining private
5.1. Where upon examination of one or more boxes of                     storage aid, it is discovered that the contents of such
     meat placed under Customs Control for the purpose                  boxes include separate pieces of fat rolled within
     of obtaining Special Export Refunds pursuant to                    plate and flank or mid rib contrary to Article 4(4) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, it is discovered that                 Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 do Regulations (EEC)
     the contents of such boxes include trimmings rolled                No 2220/85 and (EEC) No 2675/88 permit the
     within plate and flank or mid rib and if the inclusion             competent authority to reject the contents of the
     of such trimmings is contrary to Regulation (EEC)                  entire box for the purposes of private storage aid
     No 1964/82, do Council Regulation (EEC)                            and to forfeit the security for the advance payment
     No      565/80 (3)   and     Commission      Regulation            made in respect of such box plus 20 %?
     3665/87 (4) permit the Competent Authority to reject
     the contents of the entire box as not qualifying for
     Special Export Refunds and to forfeit the security            7.   Where upon such an examination of boxes placed
     given for the advance payment made in respect of                   under customs control for the purpose of obtaining
     such box plus 20 %?                                                Special Export Refunds pursuant to Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 1964/82, it is discovered that a certain
                                                                        number of boxes contain ineligible material rolled up
                                                                        inside a cut of meat and there is evidence of a
5.2. Where upon examination of one or more boxes of
                                                                        deliberate persistent policy by the operator of rolling
     meat placed under customs control for the purpose
                                                                        up such ineligible material inside particular cuts of
     of obtaining special export refunds pursuant to
                                                                        meat in particular production plants, is the
     Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, it is discovered that
                                                                        Competent Authority authorised pursuant to
     the contents of such boxes include separate pieces of
                                                                        Regulations (EEC) No 565/80, (EEC) No 3665/87
     fat rolled within plate or flank or mid rib contrary to
                                                                        and (EEC) No 1964/82 to extrapolate the results of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, do Regulations
                                                                        the sample across the production of such cuts in the
     (EEC) No 565/80 and (EEC) No 3665/87 permit the
                                                                        particular production units and to reject as eligible
     competent authority to reject the contents of the
                                                                        for Export Refunds, a quantity of meat based on
     entire box as not qualifying for special export
                                                                        such extrapolation and to forfeit the security for the
     refunds and to forfeit the security given for the
                                                                        advance payment made in respect of such quantity
     advance payment made in respect of such box plus
                                                                        plus 20 % or is the Competent Authority confined to
     20 %?
                                                                        extrapolating the results of the examination of boxes
                                                                        in one Export Refund Bond across the production of
                                                                        the relevant cuts within that Export Refund Bond as
5.3. Where upon examination of one or more boxes of                     the case may be?
     meat placed under customs control for the purpose
     of obtaining special export refunds pursuant to
     Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, it is discovered that            8.   Where boxes placed in storage under Regulation
     the contents of such boxes include non individually                (EEC) No 2675/88 for the purpose of obtaining
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/12                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
       private storage aid have been examined and a certain            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte dei Conti
       number of such boxes have been found to contain                 Ð Division for the monitoring of undertakings Ð by
       ineligible material contrary to Regulation (EEC)                order of that court of 26 November 1998 in a case
       No 2675/88 and there is evidence of a deliberate and            concerning the applicability to RAI Ð Radiotelevisione
       persistent policy of including such ineligible material         Italiana SpA Ð of Community and national law relating
       rolled up inside particular cuts in particular                                  to the award of public contracts
       production plants, is the Competent Authority                                           (Case C-440/98)
       entitled pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 2220/85
       and (EEC) No 2675/88 to extrapolate the results of                                       (1999/C 48/21)
       such examination across the production of such cuts
       in the particular production plants and to reject as            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       eligible for private storage aid a quantity of meat             European Communities by an order of the Corte dei Conti
       based on such extrapolation and to forfeit the                  (Italian Court of Auditors) Ð Division for the monitoring
       securities given in respect of the advance payments             of undertakings, which was received at the Court Registry
       made on such quantities plus 20 %, or is the                    on 3 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in a case
       Competent Authority confined to extrapolating the               concerning the applicability to RAI Ð Radiotelevisione
       results of the examination of boxes in one APS                  Italiana SpA Ð of Community and national law relating
       contract across the production of the relevant cuts             to the award of public contracts, on the following
       within that APS contract as the case may be?                    questions:
                                                                       1.    Whether or not the RAI Ð Radiotelevisione Italiana
                                                                             S.p.a. Ð is required to observe the procedures for the
9.     Where there is evidence of a persistent and deliberate                award of contracts laid down in Council Directive
       policy by an operator to include in boxes of                          93/38/EEC (1), as amended and supplemented, in
       particular cuts of boneless meat in particular                        relation to the so-called excluded sectors, having
       production plants, material which may not be stored                   regard also to the fact that Annex 17(h) to the
       pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation (EEC)                          legislative decree which transposed that directive
       No 2675/88 and the APS contract entered into by                       (No 158 of 17 March 1995) excludes from the
       the operator with the Competent Authority and                         matters to which that directive applies persons
       examination revealed significant quantities of such                   engaged in radio-broadcasting and television
       ineligible material has been stored, does Commission                  services';
       Regulation (EEC) No 1091/80 (6) and in particular
       Article 5.2(c) thereof, authorise the Competent
                                                                       2.    Whether Ð if the first question is answered in the
       Authority to forfeit the amount of the contract
                                                                             negative Ð the RAI Ð Radiotelevisione Italiana
       securities referable to the production of the relevant
                                                                             S.p.a. Ð must be regarded as definitively excluded
       cuts of meat in such production plants.
                                                                             from the list of persons who are required to observe
                                                                             Community procedures for public contracts or
                                                                             whether, on the contrary, it is subject to the general
                                                                             rules laid down by Community Directives
                                                                             93/37/EEC (2) concerning the award of public works
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 of 20 July 1982                   contracts, 92/50/EEC (3) concerning the award of
    laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds           public service contracts and 93/36/EEC (4) concerning
    on certain cuts of boned meat of bovine animals (OJ L 212,               the award of public supply contracts, as amended
    21.7.1982, p. 48).                                                       and supplemented;
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2675/88 of 29 August 1988
    providing for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a
    standard rate in advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases,    3.    Whether or not, for the abovementioned purposes,
    hindquarters and forequarters from adult male bovine animals             the RAI Ð Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.a. Ð falls
    (OJ L 239, 30.8.1988, p. 20).                                            within the Community concept of body governed by
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the                public law' since, whilst it is true that, in order to
    advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural             meet needs in the general interest relating to the
    products (OJ L 62, 7.3.1980, p. 5).                                      performance of public service tasks, it certainly
(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November                    carries on an activity of an industrial or commercial
    1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
                                                                             nature' which is open to the market, it must
    of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ
    L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1).                                                nevertheless be observed that the abovementioned
(5) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985                   entity, as well as being characterised by the special
    laying down common detailed rules for the application of the             operational and organisational rules referred to in the
    system of securities for agricultural products (OJ L 205,                grounds of this order, enjoys a special system of State
    3.8.1985, p. 5).                                                         financing in the form of the subscription fee.
(6) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1091/80 of 2 May 1980
    laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
    beef and veal (OJ L 114, 3.5.1980, p. 18).
                                                                       (2 ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.
                                                                       (3 ) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (4 ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.


title: Case C-264/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Mülheim/Baden by order of that court of 20 June 2000 in the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
26.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/25
—     The Commission confirms the finding made in the                  received at the Court Registry on 29 June 2000, for a
      reasoned opinion, to the effect that the subterranean            preliminary ruling in the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-
      waters of the department of the Oise should have been            GmbH against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      identified as affected by pollution within the meaning of        question:
      Article 3(1) of the directive.
                                                                       In the case of operations to which Article 4(3) of Directive
                                                                       69/335/EEC (1) refers, are fees for the recording and certifi-
(1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                       cation of documents by notaries in the civil service of the Land
(2) [1999] ECR I-2603.
                                                                       Baden-Württemberg in the Higher Regional Court District of
                                                                       Karlsruhe caught by the prohibition under Article 10 of that
                                                                       directive so that the fees may be charged only in accordance
                                                                       with the actual costs incurred by the notaries for the service in
                                                                       question?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
München by order of that court of 19 April 2000 in
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels-Produktions
GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle
                             München
                         (Case C-259/00)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Benelux Court
                                                                       of Justice by judgment of 26 June 2000 in the case of
                                                                            Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
                         (2000/C 247/37)
                                                                                (Case C-265/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münch-                                        (2000/C 247/39)
en (Financial Court, Munich) of 19 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- Produktions GmbH             European Communities by judgment of 26 June 2000 by the
v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle München, on                Benelux Court of Justice, which was received at the Court
the following question:                                                Registry on 29 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Benelux
Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I to              Trade Marks Office) on the following questions:
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) (OJ L 312) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                      A.   Must Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council Directive
No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and               89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning                   laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be
that immunoglobulin concentrates from dried, defatted and                   construed as meaning that, in determining whether a sign
decaseinated colostrum, standardised by means of lactose, are               consisting of a new word made up of a number of
to be classified as pharmaceutical products in chapter 30?                  component parts has a sufficiently distinctive character
                                                                            to be capable of serving as a mark for the goods in
                                                                            question, one has to proceed on the assumption that this
(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.                                           question is in principle to be answered in the affirmative
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                             even if each of those component parts is in itself devoid
                                                                            of any distinctive character for those goods, and that the
                                                                            position will be different only if there are attendant
                                                                            circumstances, for instance if the new word constitutes
                                                                            an indication, which is obvious and directly comprehen-
                                                                            sible for any person, of a commercially essential combi-
                                                                            nation of properties which cannot be indicated otherwise
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                       than through use of the new word?
Mülheim/Baden by order of that court of 20 June 2000 in
the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH against Land                  B.   If Question A is to be answered in the negative: must it
                      Baden-Württemberg                                     then be assumed that a sign consisting of a new word
                                                                            which is made up of different component parts, each of
                                                                            which is in itself devoid of any distinctive character for
                         (Case C-264/00)
                                                                            the goods in question within the meaning of Article 3(1)
                                                                            of the Directive, is itself also devoid of any distinctive
                         (2000/C 247/38)                                    character, and that the situation may be different only if
                                                                            there are attendant circumstances which result in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      combination of the component parts being greater than
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Müllheim/                  the sum of those parts, for instance where the new word
Baden (Local Court, Müllheim/Baden) of 20 June 2000,                        indicates a certain creativity?


title: Case T-495/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bank Saderat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bank Saderat v Council
   (Case T-495/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 129/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by Ashley, S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and Blakeley)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant and, further, an application for a declaration of the inapplicability to the applicant of Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Saderat plc:

                           —

                           point 7 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

                           —

                           point 5 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           point 7 of Table I.B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           point 7 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007.

               2.

               Orders the effects of annulment of Decision 2010/413 and Decision 2010/644 to be limited to the period preceding the entry into force of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413.

               3.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim by Bank Saderat that Regulation No 961/2010 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011, implementing Regulation No 961/2010, should be annulled with immediate effect.

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-509/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) (Austria) lodged on 30 September 2011 — ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG v Schienen-Control Kommission and Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) (Austria) lodged on 30 September 2011 — ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG v Schienen-Control Kommission and Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
   (Case C-509/11)
   2012/C 13/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG
   Defendants:

               1.

               Schienen-Control Kommission

               2.

               Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14, to be interpreted as meaning that the national body designated responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may prescribe, with binding effect on a railway undertaking whose compensation terms do not conform to the criteria laid down in Article 17 of that regulation, the specific content of the compensation scheme to be used by that railway undertaking although national law permits that body only to declare such compensation terms null and void?

               2.

               Is Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14, to be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking may exclude its obligation to pay compensation of the ticket price in cases of force majeure, either through application by analogy of the grounds for exclusion provided for in Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, (EU) No 1177/2010 and (EU) No 181/2011 or by taking into account the exclusions from liability provided for in Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the contract for international carriage of passengers and luggage by rail (CIV, Annex I to the Regulation) also for cases of compensation for the ticket price?


title: Case C-263/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)) — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-263/10) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied on first registration of motor vehicles)
   2011/C 269/25
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Gorj (Romania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Targu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Gorj — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Pollution tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ — Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU — Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful — Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 July 2002 in Case T-191/02 R: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Framework agreement of 1974 between the Commission and trade union and professional organisations — Repudiation — Admissibility — prima facie case)

text:
26.10.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/15
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with
                              INSTANCE                                     an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                           of 12 July 2002                                 for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission
                                                                           of 5 December 2001 by which, amongst other things, it resiled
                                                                           from the framework agreement of 20 September 1974
in Case T-163/02 R: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European                        concerning relations between the Commission and trade union
                            Communities                                    and professional organisations and adopted the operational
                                                                           rules concerning the levels, process and procedures of consul-
                                                                           tation agreed between the Commission and the majority of
(Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)                        trade union and professional organisations on 19 January
 No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action — Urgency)                     2000 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
                                                                           an order on 31 July 2002, in which he:
                          (2002/C 261/27)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          1.    Dismisses the application for interim measures;
In Case T-163/02 R: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhan-                 2.    Orders that costs are reserved.
del, established in Planegg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH,
established in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer
Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, established in Essen (Germany),
Metal Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), represented by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Forman and R. Raith) —
application for, first, suspension of the operation of Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1), and, secondly, any
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
other interim measures deemed necessary — the President of
                                                                                INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 12 July
2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                                           of 14 August 2002
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           in Case T-198/02 R: N v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                           (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                measure — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)
                              INSTANCE
                           of 31 July 2002                                                           (2002/C 261/29)
in Case T-191/02 R: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
                     European Communities                                                     (Language of the case: French)
(Procedure for interim relief — Framework agreement of
1974 between the Commission and trade union and pro-
fessional organisations — Repudiation — Admissibility —
                          prima facie case)
                                                                           In Case T-198/02 R: N, a former official of the Commission
                          (2002/C 261/28)                                  of the European Communities, residing in Asse (Belgium),
                                                                           represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         munities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for suspension of
                                                                           operation of the decision of 25 February 2002 by which the
                                                                           appointing authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary
In Case T-191/02 R: Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Com-                  measure of removal from post without reduction or with-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Senningen-                drawal of entitlement to retirement pension, provided for by


title: Case T-183/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/47

         Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
   (Case T-183/08)
   (2008/C 171/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH (Warendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Peter and J. Braune, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder & Schuh AG (Graz, Austria)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2008 in appeal proceedings R 1560/2006-4;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word and figurative mark ‘jello SCHUHPARK’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24-26 and 28 (Application No 1 269 372).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘Schuhpark’ for goods in Class 25 (No 1 007 149), in respect of opposition to the registration for goods in Classes 18, 21, 25 and 26.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 43(2) and Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and breach of the second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) in that the applicant has sufficiently proved that the opposition mark has been used in a manner which preserves its rights.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2004 in Case T-96/03: Manuel Camós Grau v Commission of the European Communities (Investigation of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and financing of the Institute for European-Latin American Relations — Possible conflict of interests with regard to an investigator — Decision to remove the investigator from the team — Action for annulment — Preparatory measures — Inadmissible)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 June 2004
   in Case T-96/03: Manuel Camós Grau v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Investigation of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and financing of the Institute for European-Latin American Relations - Possible conflict of interests with regard to an investigator - Decision to remove the investigator from the team - Action for annulment - Preparatory measures - Inadmissible)
   (2004/C 228/94)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-96/03: Manuel Camós Grau, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially H. van Lier, then J.-F. Pasquier and C. Ladenburger, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) of 17 May 2002 to remove one of the investigators from the investigation concerning the Institute for European-Latin American relations in order to avoid any apparent conflict of interests, without annulling the measures adopted by that investigator, and also the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision and, second, damages by way of compensation for the non-material damage and damage to his career allegedly sustained as a consequence of those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-334/99: Action brought on 9 September 1999 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 366/14               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.12.1999
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                          would not raise any objections to the financial allocation
                                                                          of the restructuring on grounds of State aids law. In any
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay its           event, there can be no question of demanding back the
     own costs.                                                           subsidies already paid before the end of 1995, since before
                                                                          the opening of the State aid proceedings in August 1997
                                                                          the Commission had allowed more than three years to
(1) OJ No C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                             elapse in which it did not claim that the information before
                                                                          it was insufficient. In respect of the notified intentions to
                                                                          pay subsidies also, the Commission did not at any time
                                                                          before August 1997 invoke the suspensive effect of
                                                                          Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (old version) or of
                                                                          Article 6.4.4 of the Fifth Steel Aids Code or Article 6.4.1
                                                                          of the Sixth Steel Aids Code.
Action brought on 9 September 1999 by the Federal
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                              — Infringement of the duty to state reasons
                          (Case C-334/99)
                                                                       — Erroneous application of the ECSC Treaty to the competi-
                                                                          tive assessment of non-ECSC production: The Commission
                          (1999/C 366/22)                                 bases its decision on assumptions of the danger of a
                                                                          spillover effect, and not on factual determination of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 disproportionate application of resources in the ECSC area;
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              it gives insufficient weight to an accountant’s report
Communities on 9 September 1999 by the Federal Republic                   proving the contrary.
of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski of the
Federal Ministry of Finance, Bonn, and Joachim Sedemund,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service at the               — Erroneous assessment of the investment subsidies under
office of Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Federal Ministry of Finance,              the Fifth Steel Aids Code: The Commission behaves
Graurheindorfer Strasse 108, D-53117 Bonn.                                inconsistently when it argues that the subsidies concerned
                                                                          were not notified on time, whereas it itself called upon the
The Federal Republic of Germany claims that the Court should:             Federal Government to withdraw notification that was
                                                                          made on time. In any event, the mere formal infringement
1. Annul Articles 4 to 7 of the Commission’s decision                     of a duty to notify does not justify final demand for
     K(1999) 2264 endg. of 8 July 1999 concerning ‘State aid              repayment where the substantive permissibility of the aid
     granted by Germany to Gröditzer Stahlwerke GmbH and                  has not been examined.
     its subsidiary Walzwerk Burg GmbH’;
2. Order the Commission, pursuant to Article 23 of the ECSC            — Erroneous assessment of the investment subsidies for the
     Statute of the Court of Justice, to transmit all files since         non-ECSC area: The Commission having itself acknowl-
     1994 concerning this aids proceeding to the Court of                 edged in the decision that in respect of the investment
     Justice and allow the applicant to inspect those files;              subsidies a clear distinction was to be made between the
                                                                          application of the EC and the ECSC Treaties, its reference
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 to the approval criteria of the ECSC Treaty and the Fifth
                                                                          Steel Aids Code is unlawful. Moreover, the EC activities of
                                                                          Gröditzer Stahlwerke do not constitute a ‘sensitive sector’
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           within the meaning of the Treuhand regulation cited by
                                                                          the Commission or the restructuring guidelines of the
— Irregular composition of the Commission: At the time of                 Commission. The ‘Framework for certain steel sectors not
     the decision, a Member of the Commission was ‘on                     covered by the ECSC Treaty’ (1) cited by the Commission
     holiday’, for which no provision is made in the Treaty, and          in its reasoning contains no material criteria for examining
     the transfer of his area of responsibility to another                aids in favour of the steel production areas described in
     Commissioner had the result that he could no longer                  that regulation and individually distinguished from each
     exercise his office; the number of the Commissioners with            other.
     the authority to make a decision was thus effectively
     reduced to nineteen.
                                                                          In carrying out the required assessment exclusively in
— Infringement of the duty to act within a reasonable time,               accordance with Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, the Com-
     and of the principles of sound administrative practice and           mission should in the exercise of its discretion have applied
     legal certainty: Although the Commission was informed                to this case the approval criteria which it applied in
     by notifications in 1994 and 1995 of financial measures              numerous other cases of restructuring measures, and
     already carried out and planned for the future, it fed the           in particular several comparable cases concerning the
     legitimate expectation of the Federal Government and the             Treuhand, but also in the cases of Société Marseillaise de
     undertakings concerned over a period of three years that it          Crédit (2) or Olympic Airways (3).
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 366/15
      Finally, the Commission should have cleared the notified           On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
      measures in accordance with Article 87(2)(c) of the EC             Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
      Treaty. Despite knowledge of all the relevant. circum-             down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
      stances, the Commission passes over that provision with-           export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
      out a word of justification.                                       counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                                                                         Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
— Legally erroneous assumption of aid elements in the                    situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
      privatisation procedure: The Commission wrongly                    the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
      assumes, with reference to the case-law of the Court of            the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
      Justice (4), that in the sale/liquidation comparative cost         toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
      accounting only the liquidation value determined by the            regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
      accountants was to be taken into account. Under German             his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
      law, however, the owner is responsible both for the                registered office in a non-member country?
      liquidation costs and the costs of restoring the site, and in
      this case the loans from shareholders could not be called
      in from the mass of the insolvency.
      The Commission’s criticism of the privatisation procedure
      expressed in the contested decision infringes the prohib-
      ition of contradictory conduct, since in many cases the
      Commission made on objection to comparable privatisa-
      tion procedures. Moreover, the Commission’s demands are
      not based on a realistic assessment even of the procedures
      that are normal even in the private sector for the disposal
      of shareholdings through the intervention of investment
      banks. The Federal Government therefore takes the view             Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Portuguese
      that the privatisation as such does not contain any aids.          Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
      That is, however, ignored by the Commission. On this                                           munities
      point, moreover, insufficient grounds are stated for the
      decision (infringement of the fourth indent of the second
      subparagraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Treaty, Article 15                                   (Case C-365/99)
      of that treaty, and Article 253 of the EC Treaty).
                                                                                (1999/C 366/24)
( 1) OJ No C 320 of 13.12.1988, p. 3.
( 2) OJ No L 198 of 30.7.1999, p. 1.
( 3) OJ No L 128 of 21.5.1999, p. 1.                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 4) Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Com-
     mission (1994) ECR I-4103.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 4 October 1999 by the Portuguese Republic,
                                                                         represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal Service of
                                                                         the Directorate-General for the European Communities of the
                                                                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria João Abecassis, Assistant
                                                                         in the Private Office of the Minister for Agriculture, Rural
                                                                         Development and Fisheries, acting as Agents, and by Carlos
                                                                         Aguiar and Tiago Ferreira de Lima, of the Lisbon Bar, and
                                                                         Gerard van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                  Scheffer.
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 17 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v
                        Mohammed Ibrahim
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-362/99)
                                                                         a) declare the present action admissible;
                          (1999/C 366/23)
                                                                         b) annul Commission Decision 99/517/EC (1) in so far as it
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        replaced the words ‘1 August 1999’ in Article 4 of Decision
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                            98/653/EC (2) with the words ‘1 February 2000’;
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 17 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 30 September 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v               c) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
Mohammed Ibrahim on the following question:                                   Portuguese Republic.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2002 in Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Application rejected after written tests)

text:
C 44/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               rall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 14 December 2000 removing the applicant from
                      of 12 December 2002                                  his post with no loss of pension rights — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President,
in Case T-247/01: eCopy Inc v Office for Harmonisation in                  and K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                   trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 December
                                                                           2002, in which it:
(Community trade mark — ECOPY — Misuse of powers —
Distinctiveness acquired through use after the date of filing              1.     Dismissed the application;
         — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                           (2003/C 44/53)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
In Case T-247/01, eCopy Inc, established in Nashua, New
Hampshire (United States), represented by B. Reid, Barrister, v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly): Action brought against
the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 47/2001-1) relating to
registration of the word ECOPY as a Community trade mark,
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                                        of 28 November 2002
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           in Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis v Commission
12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Open competition — Application rejected after
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          written tests)
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                                                            (2003/C 44/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis, residing in
                       of 5 December 2002                                  Barcelona, Spain, represented by J. Pujals Gomis, Lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           L. Lozano Palacios, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, J. Rivas-Andres
in Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens v Commission of the                      and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for annulment of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                               jury’s decision of 28 September 2001 in open competition
                                                                           COM/B/1/01 rejecting the applicant’s application in the com-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Criminal convic-                   petition and refusing to correct his written papers — the Court
tion — Removal from post with no loss of pension rights —                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Hearing provided for by the third paragraph of Article 7 of                President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
               Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)                          Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 November 2002,
                                                                           in which it:
                           (2003/C 44/54)
                                                                           1.     Dismissed the application;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        (1 ) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Bertem, Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. J. Cur-


title: Case T-452/04: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — French-language publishing — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold — Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser — Trustee’s independence — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/20

         Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
   (Case T-452/04) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Trustee’s independence - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
   2010/C 301/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: W. van Weert, O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)
   Interveners in support of the defendant: Wendel Investissement SA (Paris) (represented by: initially C. Couadou and M. Trabucchi, then M. Trabucchi and F. Gordon, lawyers); and Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2004) D/203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               annuls Commission Decision (2004)D/203365 of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EEC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP);

               2.

               orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;

               3.

               orders Wendel Investissement to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, of 19.2.2005.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2004 in Case T-264/03: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Procedural time-limit — Natural or legal persons — Acts of individual concern to them — Decision — Thermal insulation standards — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/42

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 May 2004
   in Case T-264/03: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Procedural time-limit - Natural or legal persons - Acts of individual concern to them - Decision - Thermal insulation standards - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 228/96)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-264/03: Jürgen Schmoldt, residing in Dallgow-Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany), Hauptverban der Deutschen Bauindustrie eV, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by H.-P. Schneider, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Article 1 of, and Table 1 of the Annex to, Commission Decision 2003/312/EC of 9 April 2003 on the publication of the reference of standards relating to thermal insulation products, geotextiles, fixed fire-fighting equipment and gypsum blocks in accordance with Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2003 L 114, p. 50), — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, (President), M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 25 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the defendant, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-264/03 R.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.


title: Case F-142/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — A v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Accident or occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Partial permanent invalidity — Claim for compensation)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — A v Commission
   (Case F-142/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Accident or occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Partial permanent invalidity - Claim for compensation)
   2014/C 31/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: A (S., France) (represented by: B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and G. Ladrière, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, acting as Agent, C. Mélotte, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision on the application for recognition of occupational disease, which the applicant brought under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, conferring on him a partial permanent invalidity rate of 20 % and establishing the date of stabilisation as 25 February 2010, and a claim for compensation in respect of his material and non-material damage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2012 to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union as a result of the occupational disease suffered by A;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay to A the sum of EUR 3 500;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by A.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 77.


title: Case C-507/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/16

         Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-507/04)
   (2005/C 45/30)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michael Van Beek and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, assisted by Matthias Lang, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to implement correctly and fully in Austrian law Articles 1(1) and (2), 5, 6(1), 7(1) and (4), 8, 9(1) and (2) and 11 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 (1) on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligation to transpose that directive fully and correctly;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action the Commission takes issue with the defective transposition in Austrian law of Directive 79/409/EEC by way of the relevant legal provisions of the Länder of Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, Vorarlberg and Vienna which were notified to the Commission or which the Commission understands to have been adopted.
   In the view of the Commission, the following were not fully and/or not correctly implemented for the territory of individual federal Länder: the provisions concerning the scope of Directive 79/409 (Article 1(1) and (2) of the Directive); the general rules governing the protection of bird species (Article 5 of the Directive); the ban on trade (Article 6(1) of the Directive); the provisions governing hunting of the species listed in Annex II (Article 7(1) of the Directive); the rules governing the preservation of populations (Article 7(4) of the Directive); the rules governing prohibited methods and equipment for hunting and capturing wild birds (Article 8 of the Directive); the criteria governing derogations from Articles 5 to 8 (Article 9(1) and (2) of the Directive); and the provisions on the introduction of wild bird species (Article 11 of the Directive).

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.


title: Case T-359/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014  — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/44

         Action brought on 27 May 2014 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE)
   (Case T-359/14)
   2014/C 253/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accelerate s.a.l. (Beirut, Lebanon)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 so that it declares that the conditions for the application of the relative ground for invalidity in Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2007/2009, or the absolute ground for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 or the ground for invalidity provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 are satisfied in the present case; and in relation to all the goods and services against which the application for a declaration of invalidity is directed;

               —

               or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods ‘rice, tapioca, sago; Flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; Honey; treacle; Yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; Vinegar, sauces (condiments); Spices; Ice’ in Class 30 and the ‘Services for providing food and drink; Temporary accommodation’ in Class 43;

               —

               and, in any event, order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 4 6 35  553

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Accelerate s.a.l.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Protected Geographical Indication ‘Café de Colombia’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006;

               —

               Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-514/09 R: Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of 5 February 2010 — De Post v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of 5 February 2010 — De Post v Commission
   (Case T-514/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - No urgency)
   2010/C 80/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: De Post NV van publiek recht (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, and assisted by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, first, an order suspending the operation of the decision by which the Publications Office of the European Union awarded the contract referred to in Invitation to Tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ to Entreprise des postes et télécommunications Luxembourg, second, an order prohibiting the signature of the contract referred to in the Invitation to Tender and, third, if the contract has already been signed, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-27/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Participation in a call for tenders — Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria — Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl
   (Case C-27/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Participation in a call for tenders - Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria - Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))
   (2016/C 287/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pippo Pizzo

      Defendant: CRGT Srl

      Interested parties and interveners: Autorità Portuale di Messina, Messina Sud Srl, Francesco Todaro, Myleco Sas

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 47 and 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an economic operator to rely on the capacities of one or more third-party entities for the purpose of satisfying the minimum requirements for participating in a tendering procedure which are only partially satisfied by that operator.

               2.

               The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from being excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract as a result of that economic operator’s non-compliance with an obligation which does not expressly arise from the documents relating to that procedure or out of the national law in force, but from an interpretation of that law and those documents and from the incorporation of provisions into those documents by the national authorities or administrative courts. Accordingly, the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an economic operator from being allowed to regularise its position and comply with that obligation within a period of time set by the contracting authority.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-4/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Communicaid Group Ltd v European Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of language-training services for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels — Rejection of tenders submitted by the applicant — Principle of transparency — Non-discrimination — Equal treatment — Article 94 of the Financial Regulation — Selection criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Communicaid Group Ltd v European Commission
   (Case T-4/13) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of language-training services for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels - Rejection of tenders submitted by the applicant - Principle of transparency - Non-discrimination - Equal treatment - Article 94 of the Financial Regulation - Selection criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment))
   2014/C 245/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment, in whole or in part, of the decisions by which the Commission refused to rank Communicaid Group Ltd in first place for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Call for Tenders HR/R3/PR/2012/002 relating to framework agreements for the provision of language training for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Communicaid Group Ltd to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case C-334/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 17 July 2001 in the ,case of Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 317/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                     intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 17 July                    freedom of establishment in national and international
2001 in the ,case of Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.                           transport operations (1), as regards the transportation of
 against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung                      passengers, or at any rate by failing to notify those
                                                                             measures to the Commission, the French Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                         (Case C-334/01)
                                                                       (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2001/C 317/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main)            Pleas in law and main arguments
of 17 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 7 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Glencore
Grain Rotterdam B.V. v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Ernährung on the following question:                                   advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       expired on 1 October 1999.
Should the second indent of the second subparagraph of
Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of
10 October 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that                     (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998, p. 17.
Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of             (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
27 November 1987 (2) must be simply applied by analogy, so
that the 12-month time-limit for supplying proof of import-
ation into the ACP State concerned does not begin to run until
the primary obligation imposed by that regulation, namely
importation into the ACP State, is fulfilled?
(1) OJ 1995 L 242, p. 3.
(2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-336/01)
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic                                           (2001/C 317/28)
                         (Case C-335/01)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (2001/C 317/27)                               7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
for service in Luxembourg.                                             the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 1.    declare that, by failing to adopt ale the laws, regulations
the Court should:                                                            and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary
(1) declare that, by fading to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                             supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             group (1), or at any rate by failing to notify those measures
      with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
                                                                             to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
      amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occu-
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      pation of road haulage operator and road passenger
      transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,
      certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications         2.    order Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Case C-358/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Directive 2014/40/EU — Article 2(25), Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1) to (5), the first sentence of Article 7(7), Article 7(12) to (14) and Article 13(1)(c) — Validity — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with characterising flavours — Tobacco products containing menthol — Legal basis — Article 114 TFEU — Principle of proportionality — Principle of subsidiarity)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-358/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 2(25), Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1) to (5), the first sentence of Article 7(7), Article 7(12) to (14) and Article 13(1)(c) - Validity - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with characterising flavours - Tobacco products containing menthol - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Principle of subsidiarity))
   (2016/C 243/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szwarc, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, D.M. Bulancea and A. Vacaru, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana, J. Herrmann, K. Pleśniak and M. Simm, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney and A. Joyce, Agents, and by E. Barrington SC and J. Cooke SC and E. Carolan, Barrister-at-Law), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, C. Brodie and M. Holt, Agents, and by I. Rogers QC and S. Abram and E. Metcalfe, Barristers), European Commission (represented by: M. Van Hoof, C. Cattabriga and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders Ireland, the French Republic, Romania, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.