title: Case C-48/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 February 2011 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 February 2011 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
   (Case C-48/11)
   2011/C 103/30
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Defendant: A Oy

      Question referred

   Is an exchange of shares in which a Finnish limited company transfers to a Norwegian company (in the corporate form of an aksjeselskap [public limited company]) shares of a company which it owns and receives as consideration shares issued by the Norwegian company to be treated in taxation (taking account of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement) neutrally in the same way as if the exchange of shares were between domestic companies or companies with their seat in Member States of the European Union?


title: Case T-477/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014  — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/66

         Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council
   (Case T-477/13) (1)

   2014/C 253/92
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-297/95)

text:
No C 286/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 10 . 95
who is domiciled in Ireland against a respondent who is                Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously                 the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
obtained in order for maintenance against the                          Hausen , Legal Adviser, with an address for service in
respondent ?                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                        time lmits all the measures necessary in order to
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive
                             of Germany                                      78/659/EEC (') of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh
                        ( Case C-297/95 )                                    waters needing protection or improvement in order to
                           ( 95/C 286/ 12 )                                  support fish life and Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                             Directive 79/923/EEC ( 2 ) of 30 October 1979 on the
                                                                             quality required of shellfish waters, the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          EC Treaty;
Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                      2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                        costs .
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            C-297/95 (■'); the time limits expired on 20 July 1980 and
     time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply          5 November 1981 respectively . As regards in particular the
     with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991                obligation to set values under Article 3 of each Directive, the
     concerning urban waste water treatment ( 1 ), the Federal         need for binding national rules arises from the fact that that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          measure is intended to improve the quality of edible fish and
     under the EC Treaty;                                              shellfish products and thereby indirectly to contribute to the
                                                                       protection of the health of humans .
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                           (') OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p. 47 .
                                                                       (') See page 6 of this Official Journal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is apparent from the mandatory nature of directives, as
laid down by the third paragraph of Article 1 89 and the first
paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, that a Member State
to which a directive is addressed is obliged to transpose the
provisions of the directive into national law in such a way
that they take full practical effect from the expiry of the time       Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission
limit for transposition . That time limit expired on 30 June                  of the European Communities against the United
 1993 , but the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                                             Kingdom
adopt all the necessary national measures .                                                      ( Case C-300/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/ 14 )
 (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
                                                                        the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service
 Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                  in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 of the European Communities against the Federal Republic               Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                              of Germany
                         ( Case C-298/95 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 95/C 286/13 )
                                                                        1 . declare that in failing to take all the measures necessary
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          1985 concerning the approximation of the laws,


title: Case T-152/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
In support of his claim, the applicant asserts:                          —     order that the costs be borne by the defendant.
—    that it is not appropriate to take into consideration the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact that the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91
     of the Staff Regulations were not complied with, since,             The applicant claims that Article 1 of the contested decision
     first, the fact that the interview before the selection board       should be annulled in so far as it only declares Article 30(3) of
     in competition COM/B/612 did not take place and that
                                                                         Greek Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992 (Greek Government
     the applicant did not attend the medical examination                Gazette No A’ 70 of 23.4.1992) as incompatible with the
     specifically referable to that competition gave rise to an
                                                                         common market.
     overwhelming state of uncertainty and, second, what
     happened in the present case amounts a defect rendering
     the contested decisions not voidable but absolutely void;           This application is based on the following grounds:
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
—    that the applicant did not sit the test corresponding to                  on the part of the Commission in concluding that
     competition COM/B/612 but that relating to competition                    Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92, imposing on ginning
     COM/B/611, and that the medical examination which he                      plants the obligation to pay to the Greek Cotton Board a
     attended and passed satisfactorily was expressly referable                levy amounting to 1 % of the total purchase price paid to
     to grade B1 principal assistants;                                         the growers per kilogram of delivered unginned cotton
                                                                               grown in Greece, is consonant with the market organis-
                                                                               ation.
—    that it is one thing to enter into service on the date
     proposed and quite another thing to accept the grade                —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
     proposed.                                                                 on the part of the Commission in failing to declare
                                                                               Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 as incompatible with the
                                                                               common market.
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error on the part of the
                                                                               Commission in failing to analyse separately the compati-
                                                                               bility of Law 2040/92 in relation with the EC State aids
                                                                               discipline.
                                                                         —     In the contested decision, the Commission totally failed
                                                                               to provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to analyse the
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union                         compatibility of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 under the
of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission                         EC State Aid rules.
                 of the European Communities
                                                                         —     Alternatively, the Commission has committed a violation
                                                                               of an essential procedural requirement by taking an
                          (Case T-148/00)                                      extraordinarily long time in concluding the formal investi-
                                                                               gation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
                          (2000/C 259/44)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, p. 27.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters, represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Vassilis Akritidis and Juan                                      (Case T-152/00)
José Gutiérrez Gisbert of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/45)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of
     20 July 1999 (1) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     cotton by the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     declares Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992,              European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamani-
     and not Article 30(1) as well, as incompatible with the             dou, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersand-
     common market; and                                                  en, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
      the Research Directorate-General rejecting her application         —     annul the Provisional Regulation to the extent that it
      for the vacant post (ref. no COM/R/7029/99) of head of                   imposes an anti-dumping duty of EUR 5,19 per tonne on
      the Mediterranean Unit in Directorate E of that Director-                Achema;
      ate-General and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
      decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs;
      Research Directorate-General appointing another candi-
      date to the post in question;
                                                                         —     take such other or further steps as justice may require.
—     order the Commission to pay compensation, provision-
      ally quantified in the sum of EUR 100 000, for the non-
      material damage suffered by the applicant;
—     order the defendant to take all the measures necessary in
      order to comply with the judgment annulling the afore-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      said decisions, namely by appointing the applicant to the
      post in question;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          The applicant in the present case, a joint stock company
                                                                         (limited liability company) established under the laws of
                                                                         Lithuania, which is the sole producer of Urea and Ammonium
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Nitrate (UAN) in Lithuania, attacks Regulation EC
                                                                         No 617/2000, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on
The applicant maintains that she was unquestionably the                  imports of solution of urea and ammonium nitrate originating
person best qualified, on account of both her knowledge and              in Alegeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and
her experience, to occupy the post in question, and that the             accepting, on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an
decision to appoint another candidate was taken solely because           exporting producer in Algeria (1).
that other candidate was an Italian national. She pleads, on
that basis, that the appointment procedure, as provided for in
Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of officials, was used
in order to achieve aims other than those indicated by                   In support of its action the applicant submits that the
Articles 1a and 7(1) and the third paragraph of Article 27 of            Provisional Regulation:
the Staff Regulations and, consequently, that the contested
decisions are vitiated by a misuse of powers, that they disregard
the principle of non-discrimination and that they are based on           —     Is unlawful, because the normal value calculation on
manifest errors of assessment of the facts, resulting in errors                which it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) of Regulation
of law.                                                                        384/96 (2), in that it is, at last in part, based on unofficial
                                                                               records kept by Achema for promotional reasons and not
                                                                               based on ACHEMA’s accounts prepared in compliance
                                                                               with Lithuanian Law. Regulation 384/96 provides that
                                                                               the Commission should calculate costs on the basis of
                                                                               records kept by the party under investigation.
Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Achema against the
         Commission of the European Communities                          —     Is unlawful in that the normal value calculation on which
                                                                               it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) (b) of Regulation
                                                                               384/96, in so far as the challenged Regulation fails ti give
                         (Case T-155/00)                                       any consideration to adopting The Applicant’s used cost
                                                                               allocation methods.
                        (2000/C 259/46)
                                                                         —     Contains manifest errors of appreciation of the facts, in
                   (Language of the case: English)                             as much as it draws selectively from two distinct sets of
                                                                               accounts, one of which should not have been used at all,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      in an inconsistent and illogical manner, and as a result of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     these selective drawings, the normal value has been
European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Achema, represent-                      determined in an inappropriate and unreasonable man-
ed by Alastair Sutton and James Killick of White & Case,                       ner. Moreover, one of the two sets of accounts should
Brussels.                                                                      have not relate to the investigation period.


title: Case F-3/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2014  — DJ v EASA

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2014 — DJ v EASA
   (Case F-3/14) (1)

   2014/C 351/41
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  ОJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 27.


title: Case T-398/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/50

         Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)
   (Case T-398/16)
   (2016/C 335/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hasmik Nersesyan (Borgloon, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘COFFEE ROCKS’ — Application for registration No 11 881 943

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 in Case R 559/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision given by the Office on 24 May 2016 in Case R 559/2015-4; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party intervenes — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-155/03: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
19.7.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by B. Stromsky and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 26 March 2003
                                                                             1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
in Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Derivados SA (INPESCA) v Commission of the European                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                          Communities (1)                                          Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
(Appeal — Action for annulment — Action for damages —                              Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorpor-
Confirmatory measure — Absence of substantive new facts                            ating stable derivates of human blood or human plas-
       — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                               ma ( 1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
                                                                                to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                          (2003/C 171/12)
                                                                             2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case C-170/01 P: Compañía Internacional de Pesca y                        Article 2 of Directive 2000/70/EC provides that Member
Derivados SA (INPESCA), established in Bermeo (Spain),                       States are to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and
(lawyers: M.I. Angulo Fuertes and M.B. Angulo Fuerte) —                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with that
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                directive before 13 December 2001 and that they are immedi-
the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/                     ately to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has
98 Inpesca v Commssion [2001] ECR II-557, seeking to have                    no information to enable it to conclude that the French
that judgment set aside, the other party to proceedings being:               authorities have definitively adopted the necessary measures
Commission of the European Communities (agents: S. Pardo                     to implement the directive or, in any event, communicated
Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández) — the Court (Fourth                      such measures to it and thus finds that the French Republic
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. The
Chamber, A. La Pergola (rapporteur) and S. Von Bahr, Judges;                 Commission further submits that the French Republic cannot
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar; has made               rely on the amendment made to Directive 2000/70/EC in
an order on 26 February 2003 by which it:                                    order to justify its failure to transpose it within the prescribed
                                                                             period since the amendment did not affect the deadline for
                                                                             transposition.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Compañía Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 313, p. 22.
      (INPESCA) to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.
                                                                             Action brought on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-175/03)
                          (Case C-155/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/14)
                          (2003/C 171/13)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April                      Communities on 14 April 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,


title: Case C-444/08 P: Order of the Court of 26 November 2009 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain, Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Regional or local body — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Order of the Court of 26 November 2009 — Região autónoma dos Açores v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain, Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council
   (Case C-444/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility - Regional or local body - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
   2010/C 63/26
   Language of the case: English.

      Parties

      Appellant: Região autónoma dos Açores (represented by: M. Renouf and C. Bryant, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Seas at Risk VZW, formerly Stichting Seas at Risk Federation, WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature, Stichting Greenpeace Council

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 in Case T-37/04 Região autónoma dos Açores v Council in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95 (OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1) — Requirement that the contested measure must be of individual concern

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed

               2.

               The Região autónoma dos Açores shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, of 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-332/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Azarov v Council

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/63

         Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-332/14)
   2014/C 223/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksii Mykolayovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Prescribe, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, measures of organisation of procedure;

               —

               Order the Council, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the statement of reasons for the contested acts do not make it possible either for him to challenge those acts before the Court or for the Court to review their legality.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the right to exercise an economic activity. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the Council misused its powers because the imposition of restrictive measures against him predominantly pursued objectives other than those of actually consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of good administration
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of infringement of the right to impartial treatment, infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment


title: Case C-70/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 109/34                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
                                                                                with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
                                                                                system (1), or at any rate to communicate the same to the
                                                                                Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
The adoption by Ireland of the Quality of Shellfish Waters                       its obligations under that directive;
(Amendment) Regulations 2001 brought its legislation into
conformity with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC by requir-               (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
ing programmes in respect of all designated waters. The
Commission is not, however, in possession of any information
indicating that Ireland has similarly rectified its position with
regard to its failure to adopt all the programmes required by              Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 5 of the directive. It is not sufficient merely to introduce
the requirement into national law — the programmes must be                 The third paragraph of Article 249 EC provides that a directive
established in practice in accordance with Article 5.                      is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
                                                                           Member State to which it is addressed. According to the first
                                                                           paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are to take all
The Commission is in possession of official confirmation by                appropriate measures, whether general or specific, to ensure
the Irish authorities that no pollution prevention programme               fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
for designated shellfish waters had been adopted as of                     resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Com-
14 December 2000. Subsequently, the Commission has not                     munity.
been informed of any change to this position, whereas,
pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, programmes should
                                                                           The Member States are obliged to transpose the directive into
have been in place for all designated waters within six years of
                                                                           national law by the due date, in such a way that the
the designation.
                                                                           transposition process is completed before the expiry of the
                                                                           time-limit fixed for transposition. That time-limit expired on
                                                                           8 April 1999, but Austria has not adopted the necessary
The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that Ireland has              measures.
failed to fulfill its obligations under the directive.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6.
(1) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.
                                                                           Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-70/02)
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                                   (2002/C 109/59)
                                Austria
                            (Case C-68/02)                                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
                           (2002/C 109/58)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Aresu and M. Shotter, acting as Agents.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 —     Declare that, by not having adopted all the measures
28 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                               necessary to implement Articles 8(6) and 9(b) of Directive
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Com-                         97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
mission’s Legal Service, and Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,                    Council (1) of 15 December 1997 concerning the pro-
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                  cessing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
Escobar Guerrero, Legal Adviser, Wagner Centre C 254,                            the telecommunications sector, the Italian Republic has
Kirchberg.                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 109/35
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          I.    set aside the judgment, on the ground that it applied
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Community law wrongly and inconsistently, in so far as
                                                                                it confirms the decision of the Commission of 21 January
(a)   Failure to implement Article 8(6) of Directive 97/66.                     1998 No 98/247/ECSC to impose a fine on the appellant
                                                                                despite the fact that it belonged to the KTS Group;
      Article 6(6) of Decree No 171/98 only partially
      implements Article 8(6) of the directive in question, since
      it makes no reference to the obligation to inform the               In the alternative:
      public of the possibilities set out in Articles 8(1), (2), (3)
      and (4) of that directive to prevent the presentation of
      CLI (‘calling line identification’) of incoming calls if CLI        II.   set aside the judgment, on the ground that it misapplied
      has been eliminated, and of the possibility of eliminating                Community law, in so far as it confirms Article 1 of
      the presentation of connected line identification to the                  the decision of the Commission of 21 January 1998
      calling user.                                                             No 98/247/ECSC, according to which the infringement
                                                                                of the rules of competition imputed to AST is held to
(b) Failure to implement Article 9(b) of Directive 97/66.                       have continued until the date of the decision itself;
      Article 9(b) of the directive places an obligation on the
      Member States to ensure that there are procedures                   III. set aside the judgment, on the ground that it infringed
      governing the elimination of the presentation of calling                  the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
      line identification on a per-line basis for organisations                 in so far as it does not uphold the appellant’s request that
      dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a                  the fine be reduced by 40 % in view of the appellant’s
      Member State, for the purpose of answering such calls.                    cooperation in the course of the procedure;
      The Italian legislation does not appear to have implement-
      ed that provision.
                                                                          in any event,
(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.
                                                                          IV. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered
on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court                     The appellant claims that the contested judgment should be
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                   set aside on the following grounds:
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen
Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Com-
            mission of the European Communities                           —     erroneous and inconsistent application of Community
                                                                                law by imposing a fine on AST despite the fact that AST
                                                                                belongs to the KTS group, which was subject to a fixed-
                         (Case C-73/02 P)                                       sum fine;
                         (2002/C 109/60)
                                                                          —     misapplication of Community law in finding that the
                                                                                infringement of the competition rules by AST was
                                                                                continuous;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and                      —     breach of the principle of equaltreatment and non-
T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai                         discrimination in the reduction applied to the fine in
Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Com-                          consideration of the appellant’s cooperation during the
munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         procedure.
European Communities on 8 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, represented by Giulia Di Tommaso
and Andrea Giardina, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2000 in Case C-38/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino): Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento (Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments — Intellectual property rights relating to vehicle body parts — Public policy)

text:
22.7.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 211/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 11 May 2000
in Case C-38/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 11 May 2000
the Corte d’Appello di Torino): Régie Nationale des Usines
     Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento (1)
                                                                            in Case C-296/98: Commission of the European Communi-
(Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments —
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
Intellectual property rights relating to vehicle body parts —
                             Public policy)
                           (2000/C 211/04)                                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC — National legis-
                                                                            lation requiring notification to the competent minister of the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        conditions of a standard form contract of insurance when it
                                                                                is first marketed)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/05)
In Case C-38/98: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                                       (Language of the case: French)
cial Matters by the Corte d’Appello di Torino, Italy, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings before that court
between Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA and Maxicar
SpA, Orazio Formento on the interpretation of Article 27,                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
point 1, of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September                                       in the European Court Reports)
1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                            In Case C-296/98: Commission of the European Communities
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended
                                                                            (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v French Republic
version — p. 77) and by the Convention of 25 October 1982
                                                                            (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a
on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388,
                                                                            declaration that, by maintaining in force Article L. 310-8 of
p. 1), and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            the Insurance Code, which provides that, when marketing a
amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 86 of the
                                                                            standard form contract of insurance for the first time in France,
EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                            insurance and capitalisation undertakings must notify it to the
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs in accordance
L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
                                                                            with the conditions laid down by order of that minister, and
let, Judges, S. Alber, Advocate General; Lynn Hewlett, Adminis-
                                                                            Article A. 310-1 of the same code, which provides that the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May
                                                                            information referred to in the first paragraph of Article L. 310-
2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            8 is to be provided in the form of a information sheet drawn
                                                                            up in French containing the information mentioned in the
Article 27, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                            annex to Article A. 310-1, the French Republic has failed to
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under Articles 6,
cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                            29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                            on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the
                                                                            provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                            and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of a court
                                                                            non-life insurance directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and
or tribunal of a Contracting State recognising the existence of an
                                                                            Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
intellectual property right in body parts for cars, and conferring on
                                                                            10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
the holder of that right protection by enabling him to prevent third
                                                                            and administrative provisions relating to direct assurance and
parties trading in another Contracting State from manufacturing,
                                                                            amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life
selling, transporting, importing or exporting in that Contracting
                                                                            assurance directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) — the Court
State such body parts, cannot be considered to be contrary to public
                                                                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
policy.
                                                                            (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as
                                                                            President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann,
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                                  J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
                                                                            General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 11 May 2000, in which it:


title: Case F-79/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Dubus v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/66

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Dubus v Commission
   (Case F-79/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/107
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Charles Dubus (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST4/C under the 2009 promotion exercise and application for compensation for non-material damage suffered

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision, published on 20 November 2009, not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted from grade AST3/4 to grade AST4/C under the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               as a consequence of that annulment, undertake a further comparative examination of the applicant’s merits and those of the other candidates under the 2009 promotion exercise and promote the applicant to grade AST4C with retroactive effect from 1 January 2009 together with the payment of interest on the arrears of pay at the rate applied by the European Central Bank in its main refinancing operations, from 1 January 2009, increased by 2 points, without however challenging the promotion of the other officials promoted and whose names appear on the list published on 20 November 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 3 500 compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of the fact that he was not promoted on 1 January 2009, without prejudice to any increase during the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-523/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/21

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)
   (Case T-523/13)
   2013/C 352/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Euromed, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Druck-Chemie GmbH (Ammerbuch-Altingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1854/2012-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROSIL’ for goods in Class 1 — Community trade mark application No 8 558 751

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Community registration No 6 140 099 and the word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Spanish registration No 2 785 209

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-250/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappĳ B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 20/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
— The relevant legislation and the public service contracts              Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the Tirrenia Group companies were notified to the
    Commission and authorised by the Commission, specifi-
    cally in the case of Law No 856/86 and by implication as             This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
    regards the agreements between the State and those                   infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the
    companies and the underlying legislation. For that reason,           defence, since it has been given no opportunity to put forward
    it is submitted that the rule in Lorenz, now embodied in             its views concerning the facts on which the decision is based.
    Article 4(6) of Regulation No 659/99, has been infringed.            For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments correspond
                                                                         to those in Case T-242/99.
— The essential features of the PSOs and the payments
    relating to them ante-date the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    Finally, the applicants also allege misuse of powers,
    thorough failure to examine the case properly, and breach
    of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                         Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Texaco Nederland
                                                                         B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Oliemaat-
                                                                         schappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Shell Nederland
Verkoopmaatschappij B.V. against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                                         (Case T-251/99)
                         (Case T-250/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/53)
                          (2000/C 20/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Texaco
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Nederland B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Olie-
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Shell Neder-                  maatschappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V., respect-
land Verkoopmaatschappij B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands),               ively established in Rotterdam, Venlo, Hasselt and Nijmegen
represented by T.M. Snoep and B. van der Gaag, of the Hague              (Netherlands), represented by H.G. Sevenster and E.P. Jorrits-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    ma, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                    bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to                  (a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
    give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to              give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
    its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633                    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
    service stations in the region bordering Germany, and                     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
    order the adoption of all such further measures as may be                 order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
    necessary;                                                                necessary;
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of               (b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
    20 July 1999 [C(1999) 2539 final);                                        20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera SA against Commission of the European Communities (Health policy - Protective measures - Decision 95/119/EC - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Statement of reasons - Misuse of powers)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/21
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of publication of the decision and for damages in respect
                      (Fourth Chamber)                               of the losses incurred as a result thereof, the Court
                                                                     (Second Chamber) composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
                        of 15 July 1998                              President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
in Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of               H. Jung, made an order on 15 September 1998, the
                   the European Union (1)                            operative part of which is as follows:
                      (Taxation of costs)                            1. the application is dismissed;
                         (98/C 340/39)
                                                                     2. the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
In Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH, formerly
General Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is
in Vienna, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of the
Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                                      of 21 September 1998
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of the
                                                                     in Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for
taxation of costs made following the judgment of the                                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
Court of First Instance of 22 January 1997 in Case T-115/
                                                                                (98/C 340/41)
94 Opel Austria v. Council [1997] ECR II-39 Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 July 1998, the                  In Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
operative part of which is as follows:                               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and
The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Council to           Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
the applicant is fixed at BFR 4 000 000.                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, v.
(1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Florence Clotuche)
                                                                     Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision of 13 May 1997 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint against the decision rejecting his request for a
                                                                     review of his classification Ð the Court of First Instance
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                    of 15 September 1998                             and J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                     Registrar, made an order on 21 September 1998, the
in Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
 SA against Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Health policy Ð Protective measures Ð Decision 95/119/              1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
EC Ð Principle of legal certainty Ð Principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations Ð Principle of                 2. the applicant shall bear his own costs.
proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð
         Statement of reasons Ð Misuse of powers)                    (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                         (98/C 340/40)
              (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
SA, established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ignacio                                 of 9 September 1998
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of            in Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v.
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue
Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European                (Agriculture Ð Action for annulment of a regulation
Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias Buhigues and                       having general application Ð Inadmissibility)
Blanca Vila Costa), relating to an application for                                            (98/C 340/42)
annulment of Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
1995 concerning certain protective measures with regard                              (Language of the case: Italian)
to fishery products originating in Japan (OJ L 80 of
8.4.1995, p. 56) to the extent that those measures relate            In Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo,
to fishery products en route to the Community at the time            established at Forlì (Italy), and Carlo Bazzocchi, residing


title: Case C-504/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 79/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                     In the Commission’s view, the Belgian authorities have failed
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                       to apply Directive 91/670/EEC in such a way as to achieve
                               Belgium                                   the results provided for therein, and have not chosen the
                                                                         appropriate means and formal arrangements to facilitate,
                                                                         rather than complicate, the free movement of workers which
                         (Case C-504/99)                                 it seeks to secure.
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 on mutual
                          (2000/C 79/21)                                     acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in
                                                                             civil aviation (OJ L 373 of 31.12.1991, p. 21).
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,
and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-505/99)
(1) declare that, by requiring a pilot from another Member
                                                                                (2000/C 79/22)
     State who holds a licence accepted as equivalent to a
     Belgian licence to return to the Member State in which
     his licence was issued in order to obtain additional                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
     qualifications which that State is not technically in a             the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
     position to provide, or to renew his licence, the Kingdom           of the European Communities, represented by Christopher
     of Belgium has misapplied the applicable Community                  Van der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
     provisions, in particular those of Directive 91/670/EEC (1)         an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     and Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty;                    Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         Kirchberg.
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                              visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                              97/61/EC of 20 October 1997 amending the Annex to
The requirement whereby any person applying for renewal of                    Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions
his licence or for admission to the tests to be passed in order               for the production and placing on the market of live
to exercise higher functions or to obtain a new qualification                 bivalve molluscs (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
must hold a Belgian licence necessarily places nationals of                   comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
other Member States at a disadvantage and therefore consti-
tutes covert discrimination as prohibited by Article 43 of the           — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Treaty. In any event, in the context of a fundamental freedom
recognised by the Treaty, the fact that the Belgian requirement
‘inhibits’ the exercise of the right of establishment, or simply         Pleas in law and main arguments
makes it ‘less attractive’, is enough to render that requirement
incompatible with Article 43 EC. The fact that that requirement
likewise applies to Belgian nationals in the same position does          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
not in any way alter that conclusion.                                    in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 2 of
                                                                         Directive 97/61/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
The same considerations apply as regards Article 39 EC; the              (1) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 35.
conditions to be complied with in order to extend the duration           (2) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 16.
of, or the scope of the rights conferred by, a professional licence
are conditions of work within the meaning of Article 39(2) and
(3).


title: Case C-81/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/13/EC — Annex IIB — Atmospheric pollution — Volatile organic compounds — Emission reductions — Use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations — Obligations applying to existing installations — Time extension)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
   (Case C-81/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/13/EC - Annex IIB - Atmospheric pollution - Volatile organic compounds - Emission reductions - Use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations - Obligations applying to existing installations - Time extension))
   (2015/C 363/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV

      Respondent: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations must be interpreted as meaning that the time extension provided for in point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to that directive may be given to the operator of an ‘installation’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, for the implementation of his plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, even though, for that installation, a constant solid content of product can be assumed and used to define the reference point for emission reductions.

               2)

               Point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to Directive 1999/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a time extension for the implementation of a scheme to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds requires an authorisation from the competent authorities, which presupposes a prior application from the operator concerned. When determining whether a time extension must be given to an operator for the implementation of a plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and fixing the duration of the time extension which may be given, it is for those competent authorities, within the discretion available to them, to verify in particular that substitutes which may be used in the installations concerned and which may reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds are actually under development, that the work in progress, in the light of the evidence provided, is capable of perfecting such substitutes and that there is no alternative measure which may result in similar or even greater emission reductions, at a lower cost, and, in particular, that other substitutes are not already available. Furthermore, account should be taken of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emission reductions which can be achieved by means of the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes and, on the other hand, the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures. The duration of the time extension must not go beyond what is necessary for substitutes to be developed. That must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors and, in particular, the magnitude of the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures as compared with the magnitude of the emission reductions that will be achieved by the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-214/12: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/44

         Order of the General Court of 2 December 2013 — Indesit Company v OHIM — ILVE (quadrio)
   (Case T-214/12) (1)

   2014/C 45/76
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case T-223/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-223/04) (1)

   (2008/C 301/101)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003 (formerly Case C-401/03).


title: Case T-588/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — HN v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Reform of the Staff Regulations — New career rules and rules for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 — Officials of grade AD 12 — Exercise of particular responsibilities — Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Promotion year 2014 — Request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ — Lack of response from the Appointing Authority — Promotion year 2015 — Fresh request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ or ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ — Rejected by the Appointing Authority — Confirmatory nature of the refusal of categorisation in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ — Requirements related to the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — HN v Commission
   (Case T-588/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Reform of the Staff Regulations - New career rules and rules for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 - Officials of grade AD 12 - Exercise of particular responsibilities - Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion year 2014 - Request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Lack of response from the Appointing Authority - Promotion year 2015 - Fresh request to be categorised in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ or ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ - Rejected by the Appointing Authority - Confirmatory nature of the refusal of categorisation in the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ - Requirements related to the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 195/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HN (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Ehrbar and A-C. Simon, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking in particular the annulment of ‘the decision rejecting the [applicant’s] request to be regarded as exercising particular responsibilities giving rise to his categorisation in the type of post [of] “Adviser or equivalent” under Article 30(3) of Annex XIII of the [new] Staff Regulations’ and Decision SEC(2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, entitled “Communication to the Commission amending the Rules governing the composition of the Members” Cabinets and the Spokespersons’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr HN to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-18/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016)..


title: Case C-367/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Déborah Prete v Office National De L’emploi

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2011 — Déborah Prete v Office National De L’emploi
   (Case C-367/11)
   2011/C 282/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Déborah Prete

      Respondent: Office National De L’emploi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 12, 17, 18 and, so far as necessary, 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as consolidated at Amsterdam on 2 October 1997, preclude a provision of national law under which, in the manner of Article 36(1)(2)(j) of the Belgian Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 laying down unemployment regulations, entitlement to tideover allowance for a young European Union national, who does not have the status of a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty, has completed secondary studies in the European Union but not at an educational establishment run, subsidised or approved by one of the communities in Belgium and has obtained either a document issued by one of those communities establishing the equivalence of those studies to the study certificate issued by the competent authority of one of those communities for studies completed in those Belgian educational establishments, or else a document giving access to higher education, is conditional upon the young person in question having previously completed six years’ studies at an educational establishment run, approved or subsidised by one of the communities in Belgium, if that condition is exclusive and absolute?

               2.

               If so, do the circumstances of the young person described in the first question, who has not completed six years’ studies at a Belgian educational establishment, resides in Belgium with her Belgian spouse and is registered as a job-seeker with a Belgian employment service, constitute factors to be taken into consideration in order to appraise that young person’s link to the Belgian employment market, having regard to Articles 12, 17, 18 and, if appropriate, 39 of the Treaty? To what extent must the length of those periods of residence, marriage and registration as a job-seeker be taken into consideration?


title: Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-12/97)

text:
No C 94/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 3 . 97
in Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          In support of her application, the applicant pleads
                                                                     infringement of Articles 31 ( 2 ) and 32 of the Staff
primarily:                                                           Regulations of officials, as well as a manifest error of
                                                                     assessment .
— declare the application admissible in as much as it
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                She maintains in that regard that she has, since 1981 ,
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                acquired exceptional professional experience in the fields
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                        of diplomacy, agricultural policy and environmental
     8 October 1996 (*),                                             policy, and that that experience has been recognized both
                                                                     by her previous employers and by her present assessor. It
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all the                is, moreover, an established fact, in her view, that she was
     costs associated with these proceedings;                        immediately able to perform her duties and that she has
                                                                     enabled her unit to make real progress in the field of
in the alternative :                                                 agricultural policy.
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect
                                                                     The applicant concludes from this that the Commission
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post              has committed a manifest error of assessment, first, by
     clearance duties in question;                                   taking the view that neither her experience nor her
in the further alternative :                                         qualifications are sufficiently exceptional to justify her
                                                                     recruitment in a higher grade and, second, by considering
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                  that the post which she filled did not require the
     decision should not be annulled, order the                      recruitment of a particularly well-qualified official.
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in
     so far as it relates to Invoice No 7338F, which has
     already been settled, and in so far as it concerns              Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
     interest payments .                                                       against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-14/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/43 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those already relied on in Case T- 10/97 Unifrigo Gadus Sri                          (Language of the case: French)
v. Commission of the European Communities.                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Unpublished.
                                                                     Communities on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo, established
                                                                     at Conde sur Vire (France ), Sofivo Production, established
                                                                     at Brece ( France ), Sovinor, established at Conde sur Vire
                                                                     ( France ), Denkavit France, established at Montreuil-Bellay
                                                                     ( France ), Sobeval Viande, established at Périgueux
Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett                    ( France ), Serval, established at Sainte Eanne ( France ),
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Besnier Industrie, established at Bourgbarre ( France ),
                         (Case T-12/97)                              Sovida, established at Chateaubriand ( France ), Sica Ouest
                                                                     Elevage, established at Ploudaniel ( France ), Guinde,
                          ( 97/C 94/42 )                             established at Montauban de Bretagne ( France ),
                                                                     Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot ( France ),
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon (France ),
An action against the Commission of the European                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau ( France )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    and Collet et Compagnie, established at Chateaubourg
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                   ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
1997 by Anna Barnett, residing in Brussels, represented by           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               The applicants claim that the Court should:
rue de Cessange .
                                                                     — annul Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 adopted on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                          institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
— annul the decision of the appointing authority fixing                   the act being separable from its other provisions,
     at grade A 7 the applicant's classification in grade
     upon her recruitment,                                           — order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-28/10 P: Order of the Court of 2 September 2010 — Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeals — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Irregular form of order sought — Clear inadmissibility)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/22

         Order of the Court of 2 September 2010 — Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-28/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Irregular form of order sought - Clear inadmissibility)
   2010/C 346/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mehmet Salih Bayramoglu (represented by: A. Riza QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: C. Karamarcos and N. Görlitz, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 in Case T-110/09 Bayramoglu v Parliament and Council, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of Council Decision 2004/511/EC of 10 June 2004 concerning the representation of the people of Cyprus in the European Parliament in case of a settlement of the Cyprus problem — Action brought out of time

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Bayramoglu shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.