title: Case C-123/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by Versalis SpA and Eni SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 December 2012 in Case T-103/08 Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, and Eni SpA v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/13

         Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by Versalis SpA and Eni SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 December 2012 in Case T-103/08 Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, and Eni SpA v Commission
   (Case C-123/13 P)
   2013/C 147/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Versalis SpA and Eni SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, A. Bardanzellu, D. Durante and V. Laroccia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2012, in so far as it dismissed the joint action brought by Versalis and Eni, and, accordingly:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, the Decision of the European Commission of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38629 — Chloroprene rubber);

               —

               annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on Versalis and Eni by that decision;

         or, in the alternative,

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment in Case T-103/08 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Versalis and Eni, and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in relation to the current appeal proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance (Case T-103/08).

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of their appeal against the judgment in Case T-103/08, Versalis and Eni submit, first, that the General Court, in breach of Article 101 TFEU, deviated from the relevant EU case-law in order to attribute to the parent company — Eni — the infringement committed, so it is claimed, by Eni’s subsidiaries in the chloroprene rubber industry, and, in particular, that the General Court deviated from its duties to conduct a proper analysis and to state reasons when assessing the evidence adduced to reverse the presumption that decisive influence was exercised, thereby acting in breach of the fundamental principles of legality, of liability for one’s own acts in relation to antitrust liability and of the presumption of innocence, and infringing the rights of the defence, as well as the principle of the limited liability of companies.
   Secondly, Versalis and Eni submit that the General Court misapplied the relevant EU case-law in order to attribute to Versalis the infringement committed by Syndial SpA and did not give an adequate statement of reasons for rejecting the pleas raised by Eni and Versalis at first instance.
   The third ground of appeal is that the General Court applied incorrectly, and in a contradictory manner, the principle enshrined in case-law regarding express dissociation from a cartel, and infringed the principle of in dubio pro reo, by holding that EniChem SpA had taken part in the meeting of 12 to 13 May 1993 in Florence and that the meetings which took place in 2002, in which Versalis took part, had been anti-competitive in nature. As a result, the General Court made an incorrect assessment and failed to exercise its own jurisdiction to review legality, in finding that those companies had participated in the cartel throughout its duration (that is, from May 1993 until May 2002).
   Moreover, it is submitted that the General Court infringed EU law by failing to point out that the Commission had made serious errors in determining the basic amount of the fine in accordance with the Guidelines on the method of setting fines.
   It is also claimed that the General Court infringed EU law by partially confirming that the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement applied to Versalis and, in addition, by not giving an adequate statement of reasons for its conclusions on that point; in the alternative, the General Court erred in setting the percentage reduction in the increase of the fine and in maintaining Eni’s joint liability for payment of the fine, including the part attributable to repeated infringement.
   According to Versalis and Eni, the General Court then manifestly misapplied Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in determining the maximum amount of the fine and erred in law by failing to conduct a full review of how the Leniency Notice was applied by the Commission. They also claim that the General Court failed to note that the Commission had acted in breach of the principles of fairness, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations when it, first, deprived Versalis and Eni of their chance to compete ‘on equal terms’ with the other undertakings to have the amount of the fine reduced, and, second, found that their cooperation had not merited a reduction of the fine for the purposes of the Notice and the Guidelines.
   Lastly, Versalis and Eni claim that the General Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to review the legality of the Commission’s findings regarding the quantification of the fine ultimately imposed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-160/00: Action brought on 28 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 176/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French                           the mandatory requirement related to the protection of the
Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic                        environment?
Division) by judgment of that court of 18 April 2000 in
         the case of Sapod Audic v Eco Emballages
                                                                        (1) laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the
                                                                            field of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109, 26.4.1983,
                                                                            p. 8).
                                                                        (2) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
                        (Case C-159/00)                                 (3) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
                                                                            L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39).
                                                                        (4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                        (2000/C 176/30)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Action brought on 28 April 2000 by the Commission of
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                             the European Communities against Ireland
Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Commercial, Financial and
Economic Division) of 18 April 2000, which was received at
the Court Registry on 28 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling                                      (Case C-160/00)
in the case of Sapod Audic v Eco Emballages. The French Cour
de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)
asks the Court of Justice to rule on the following questions:                                      (2000/C 176/31)
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 28 April 2000 by the
1. Must Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
    28 March 1983 (1), as drafted both before and after amend-          Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official seconded
    ment by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament               to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrangement for
    and the Council of 23 March 1994 (2) materially amending            the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents, with an
    Directive 83/189/EEC for the second time, be interpreted            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    as meaning that the provisions of Decree No 92-377 of               Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    1 April 1992 constitute a technical regulation, in particular       Commission, Centre Wagner.
    inasmuch as they permit a producer not to use Eco
    Emballages’ approved system if the producer itself arranges
    for the elimination of its packaging waste?                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
2. Must Article 10 of Directive 83/189, both before and after
    amendment by Directive 94/10, and Article 3(2) of                        — Directive 96/24/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 amending
    Directive 75/442/EEC (3) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as                         Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound
    amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March                           feedingstuffs
    1991 (4) be interpreted as meaning that the French Govern-
    ment was required to notify the Commission of the                        — Directive 96/25/EC (2) of 29 April 1996 on the circu-
    provisions of the decree of 1 April 1992 and, if it was so                    lation of feed materials, amending Directives
    required, that an individual may rely on the failure to notify                70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC
    in order to have the provisions declared unenforceable?                       and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC
                                                                             — Directive 98/67/EC (3) of 7 September 1998 amending
                                                                                Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC, 91/357/EEC and
3. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC),                          Council Directive 96/25/EC and repealing Directive
    properly construed, preclude rules such as those contained                    92/87/EEC;
    in Decree 92-377 requiring an importer of products from
    other Member States intended for household use to use
    packaging meeting certain technical requirements and to                  and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
    affix to that packaging a ‘logo’ proving that he has                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
    subscribed to an approved system for the recovery of                     Directives, and
    packaging waste, inasmuch as those rules, which are
    applicable to all products alike, are not proportionate to          — order Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 176/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                        to:
The Commission considers that it is the duty of Ireland to
initiate, in due time, the procedures necessary for incorporating       — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period pre-
Directives 96/24/EC, 96/25/EC and 98/67/EC into Irish law so                 scribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,               necessary to comply with Commission Directive
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform                 98/22/EC (1) of 15 April 1998 laying down the minimum
the Commission thereof.                                                      conditions for carrying out plant health checks in the
                                                                             Community, at inspection posts other than those at the
                                                                             place of destination, of plants, plant products or other
Ireland has not yet adopted the measures relating to the                     objects coming from third countries, the Hellenic Republic
abovementioned Directives and has, in any event, not notified                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
those measures to the Commission.                                            directive;
(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.96, p. 33.
                                                                        — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.96, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 261, 24.9.98, p. 10.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
                                                                        establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
                                                                        binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                        State to which it is addressed. Under the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 10 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
Action brought on 5 May 2000 by the Commission of the                   appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                   fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
                                                                        resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Com-
                         (Case C-163/00)                                munity.
                         (2000/C 176/32)                                It is clear that the Hellenic Republic is required to take
                                                                        measures to comply with the above directive.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 5 May 2000 by the Commission of                 The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not yet
the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                  taken the appropriate measures to transpose the directive in
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in           question fully into the Greek legal system.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               (1) OJ L 126 of 28.4.1998, p. 26.


title: Case C-387/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ancona (Italia) lodged on 13 August 2007 — MI.VER Srl, Daniele Antonelli v Provincia di Macerata

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ancona (Italia) lodged on 13 August 2007 — MI.VER Srl, Daniele Antonelli v Provincia di Macerata
   (Case C-387/07)
   (2007/C 283/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Ancona (Italia)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MI.VER Srl, Daniele Antonelli

      Defendant: Provincia di Macerata
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the notion of ‘temporary deposit’ in terms of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste such as to permit a producer to mix together items of waste covered by different respective codes in the European Waste Catalogue, as provided for in Commission Decision 2000/532/EC (2) of 3 May 2000?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, may EWC Code 15 01 06 (‘imballaggi in materiali misti’, ‘mixed packaging’) be used to cover waste consisting of packaging of various materials grouped together, or does that code refer exclusively to packaging made of various materials or made up of separate components of different materials?

      (1)  OJ 194, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ 226, p. 3.


title: Case T-184/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014  — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HEATSTRIP — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)
   (Case T-184/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HEATSTRIP - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 282/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach b. München, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 1956/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd and Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-83/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/ 11
After that period had expired with no communication from              requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                   proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty .
requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.                          H OJ No L 110 , 28 . 4 . 1992 , p . 52 .
(') OJ No L 166 , 28 . 6 . 1991 , p . 77 .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995 , in the
                                                                      case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
                                                                      against Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General
Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of                                           ( Case C-84/95 )
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                           ( 95/C 137/21 )
                         ( Case C-83/95 )
                           ( 95/C 137/20 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, of 12 February 1995 , which was received at the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                       against     Minister         for    Transport, Energy       and
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal               Communications , Ireland and the Attorney General, on the
Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in             following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                Is Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 990/93 of
                                                                      26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
                                                                      Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) (') to be construed as
                                                                      applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking
1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its       the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an
     obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to           undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia
     bring into force and to communicate to the Commission            and Montenegro ) where such aircraft has been leased by the
     within the requisite time limit the laws, regulations and        owner for a term of four years from the 22 April 1992 to an
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with               undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is
     Council Directive 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the               not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the
     supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated             said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and
     basis ( ! );                                                     Montenegro )?
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                    (') OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 9 of Directive 92/30/EEC provides that the Member             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and              Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994
administrative decisions necessary to comply with the                    in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Koln-West
Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith                                      Case C-85/95 )
to notify the Commission thereof.
                                                                                ( 95 /C 137/22 )
Having received no communication from the Greek
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Government concerning measures adopted in order to
                                                                      European Communities by*an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek               ( Federal Finance Court) of 12 October 1994 , which was
legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a
to the Government in question a formal letter before action .
Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt
                                                                      Koln-West, on the following questions:
Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
giving the Greek Government a period of two months                    1 . Is an invoice within the meaning of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
within which to comply with the Directive .                                the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) only the original,
                                                                           that is to say, the original copy of the statement of
After that period had expired with no communication from                   account, or are carbon copies, duplicates or photocopies
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                        also to be regarded as being invoices in that sense ?


title: Removal from the register of C-229/95

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


C 72/14                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                      conclusions of the Commission.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      (1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      (2) OJ L 43, 20.2.1979, p. 20.
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).                                    Removal from the register of Case C-276/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/28)
                                                                      By order of 10 November 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register
             the European Communities v. Ireland                      of Case C-276/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                          (Case C-26/98)
                           (98/C 72/27)                               (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 January 1998
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbñk, a member of its
Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-170/97 (1)
seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for                                   (98/C 72/29)
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                           removal from the register of Case C-170/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Ð declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations             (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/26/EC (1) of 15 June 1994 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC (2) of
     6 February 1979 on the approximation of the laws of
     the Member States concerning electrical equipment for
     use in potentially explosive atmospheres employing
     certain types of protection, or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has                      Removal from the register of Case C-171/97 (1)
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
                                                                                (98/C 72/30)
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   removal from the register of Case C-171/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 31 March


title: Case T-293/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Banimmo v Commission

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/49

         Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Banimmo v Commission
   (Case T-293/15)
   (2015/C 236/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Banimmo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the applicant to sound administration and effective legal protection, in so far as, despite repeated requests from the applicant, the Commission has not provided it with the reasons for refusing its offer.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a modification during the procedure of some essential factors of the property prospecting notice concerned, in infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency, since the Commission led negotiations with the various tenderers in an unforeseen manner with a lack of transparency, by, in particular, not formally announcing the stages of the procedure and the periods to submit tenders.


title: Case C-327/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/6

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2007 by Bolloré SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission
   (Case C-327/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bolloré SA (represented by: C. Momège and P. Gassenbach, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, first, it infringed the rights of defence of Bolloré SA and the principle of the presumption of innocence and, second, distorted the evidence in order to establish the duration of the infringement;

               —

               give final judgment in Case T-109/02, in accordance with Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and annul Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (1) in so far as it relates to Bolloré SA or, in any event, reduce the fine imposed on Bolloré SA by the Commission and confirmed by the Court of First Instance;

               —

               in the event that the Court does not itself decide on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's judgment;

               —

               finally, in accordance with Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, order the Commission to pay the costs both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, which is in two parts, it claims, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence by not annulling the above mentioned Commission decision even though it finds, in the judgment under appeal, that the statement of objections did not enable the appellant to acquaint itself with the objection based on its direct involvement in the infringement, or even with the facts established by the Commission in support of that objection, so that the appellant was unable properly to defend itself during the administrative procedure.
   Second, the rights of the defence were also infringed in so far as the Court of First Instance held that the fact that the Commission erred in law cannot justify annulment of the contested decision since it could not have had a decisive effect on the operative part of that decision. In the appellant's submission, the statement of objections plays such a fundamental role in Community competition law that failure to comply with the rules governing the statement of objections relating to the identification and determination of responsibility should have led irremediably to the annulment of the contested decision.
   By its second plea, the appellant submits further that, in order to establish the duration of the infringement and set the amount of the fine payable by Bolloré accordingly, the Court of First Instance, first, infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence by relying on mere indications which are substantiated and, second, distorted the evidence relating to the value placed on the statements of another company (Arjo Wiggins Appleton) and to the alleged anti-competitive object of an official meeting of the Association of European Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper held in Zürich on 23 January 1992.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1.


title: Case C-594/11: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2013 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/56

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2013 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-594/11) (1)

   2013/C 225/107
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-344/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mora Kommun (Sweden) lodged on 21 August 2009 — Dan Bengtsson v Tele2 Sverige AB, Telenor Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Mobile Networks AB, Teracom

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mora Kommun (Sweden) lodged on 21 August 2009 — Dan Bengtsson v Tele2 Sverige AB, Telenor Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Mobile Networks AB, Teracom
   (Case C-344/09)
   ()
   2010/C 317/24
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Mora Kommun

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dan Bengtsson

      Defendants: Tele2 Sverige AB, Telenor Sverige AB, TeliaSonera Mobile Networks AB, Teracom

      Question referred

   The environment and health committee of the Municipality of Mora seeks a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) in relation to Article 174(2) EC. The question is whether the reference levels for electromagnetic fields set out in the Recommendation are to be interpreted as guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle, or whether that principle constitutes a complement to the Recommendation?

      (1)  Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ 1999 L 199, p. 59).


title: Case C-53/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 2 February 2017 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 2 February 2017 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium
   (Case C-53/17)
   (2017/C 144/28)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fövárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt.

      Defendant: Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 (1) which is worded ‘Enterprises which have one or other of such relationships through a natural person or group of natural persons acting jointly are also considered linked enterprises if they engage in their activity or in part of their activity in the same relevant market or in adjacent markets’ to be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a global group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another automatically and regardless of other circumstances, without it being necessary to examine in detail whether they are in fact in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) or whether they are acting jointly on the same market;

               2.

               If not, must that subparagraph be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another only where they are in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d)?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.


title: Case T-295/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Autoneum Germany v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/44

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Autoneum Germany v Commission
   (Case T-295/14)
   2014/C 223/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Autoneum Germany GmbH (Roßdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case C-214/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2016 — C. King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2016 — C. King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar
   (Case C-214/16)
   (2016/C 222/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C. King

      Defendants: The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar

      Questions referred

               (1)

               If there is a dispute between a worker and employer as to whether the worker is entitled to annual leave with pay pursuant to article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1), is it compatible with EU law, and in particular the principle of effective remedy, if the worker has to take leave first before being able to establish whether he is entitled to be paid?

               (2)

               If the worker does not take all or some of the annual leave to which he is entitled in the leave year when any right should be exercised, in circumstances where he would have done so but for the fact that the employer refuses to pay him for any period of leave he takes, can the worker claim that he is prevented from exercising his right to paid leave such that the right carries over until he has the opportunity to exercise it?

               (3)

               If the right carries over, does it do so indefinitely or is there a limited period for exercising the carried-over right by analogy with the limitations imposed where the worker is unable to exercise the right to leave in the relevant leave year because of sickness?

               (4)

               If there is no statutory or contractual provision specifying a carry-over period, is the court obliged to impose a limit to the carry-over period in order to ensure that the application of the Regulations does not distort the purpose behind article 7?

               (5)

               If so, is a period of 18 months following the end of the holiday year in which the leave accrued compatible with the article 7 right?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. OJ L 299, p. 9


title: Case C-196/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014  — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-196/14)
   2014/C 194/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Aachen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Horst Hoeck

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant seeks interest from the defendant for the period 2011/2012 in respect of bonds (government bonds) — issued by the defendant and purchased by the applicant in July 2011 — which were the subject-matter of the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012 to, among others, the applicant, and which the applicant rejected, with the result that the defendant none the less exchanged the bonds/government bonds held by the applicant for new ones?

               2.

               Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant, as an alternative avenue of recourse, seeks payment from the defendant amounting to the nominal value of its bonds/government bonds purchased by the applicant, including unpaid interest, by reason of the forced exchange described in Question 1?

               3.

               Are the main proceedings before the Landgericht Aachen [in Case] 12 O 177/13 to be assigned to civil or commercial law, with the result that Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters are applicable?

               4.

               Alternatively, does the case concern an administrative matter or a matter of State liability, to which the provisions cited in Questions 1, 2 and 3 are not applicable?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


title: Case T-403/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Intrasoft v Commission (Interim measures — Public contracts — Procurement procedure — Rejection of a bid — Application for a stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Intrasoft v Commission
   (Case T-403/12 R)
   (Interim measures - Public contracts - Procurement procedure - Rejection of a bid - Application for a stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2013/C 9/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution, first, of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2012 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS concerning technical assistance to the customs administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system (OJ 2011/S 160-262712), and, secondly, of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 12 September 2012 informing the applicant that the evaluation committee had recommended that the contract be awarded to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-52/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/51

         Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission
   (Case T-52/07)
   (2007/C 82/106)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Movimondo Onlus (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, declare, pursuant to Article 241 EC, that Articles 133 and 175 of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 are unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By the present action, the Associazione Movimondo ONLUS — a non-governmental organisation for international cooperation and solidarity — seeks, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 December 2006 (prot. C (2006) 5802 final) imposing an administrative penalty on the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Movimondo for serious breach of professional ethics and non-performance of contractual obligations.

               2.

               In that connection, it should be pointed out that contractual relations with the Commission in the case of humanitarian aid and actions in the field of development cooperation are governed by contracts called Grant Agreements, concluded in accordance with Framework Partnership Agreements (FPAs) and general contract conditions. In particular, the ECHO FPAs concerned by the events in relation to which the Commission intended to impose the contested penalty are the following:

                           —

                           FPA No 3-134, signed on 6 November 2003;

                           —

                           FPA No CCP 99/0119 of 26 February 1999.

               3.

               In support of its action for annulment of the decision of 1 December 2006, Movimondo puts forward five pleas in law.
               By the first plea, the applicant alleges infringement of provisions of law in relation to Articles 93, 96 and 114 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, and raises a plea of illegality in respect of Articles 133 and 175 of Commission Regulation 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 on the ground that they infringe Article 183 of Council Regulation No 2988/1995 of 18 December 1995.
               By the second plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission made an erroneous and incomplete assessment of the factual basis for the allegations against the applicant, and maintains that there was no conclusive evidence on which to base the decision imposing a penalty.
               By the third plea, the applicant alleges breach of the general principle of audi alteram partem.
               By the fourth plea, the applicant alleges an error of assessment of the facts on which the penalty was based and attribution in relation to the applicant of non-existent circumstances. At the same time, it alleges breach of the principle of proportionality and failure properly to state the grounds for its decision as regards the ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature ’[of the penalty] as required under Article 114 of Regulation No 1605/2002 (the Financial Regulation).
               Lastly, by the fifth plea, the applicant alleges, first, that the projects constituting a sine qua non for the contested decision are of wholly indeterminate nature, and that the decision is time-barred. At the same time, it maintains that there is no Community act which provides for such a penalty and alleges infringement of Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of Council Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995. Secondly, it alleges infringement of Articles 175 and 133 of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
C 294/4       EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                            23.9.98
                                                       III
                                                    (Notices)
             COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN
                                        COMMUNITIES
                                          COMMISSION
                                   NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                 (98/C 294/04)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the Commission of the European
        Communities are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities CØ294ØA of
        23ÙSeptember 1998 the following open competitions:
        Finnish-language edition
        EUR/B/143: (Administrative assistants — proof readers of Finnish mother tongue)
        Swedish-language edition
        EUR/B/144: (Administrative assistants — proof readers of Swedish mother tongue)
        To obtain this Official Journal, please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice
        of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
        The final date for receipt of applications is 30 October 1998.


title: Case C-453/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateas (Greece)) — Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Ntolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Chatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios Th. Liotakis, Vasileos Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodioikisi Dramas-Kavalas, Xanthis (Common fisheries policy — Fisheries in the Mediterranean — Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 — Article 1(2) and (3) — Prohibition of the use of certain types of fishing net — Measures supplementary to or going beyond the minimum requirements of that regulation which were adopted before its entry into force — Conditions of validity)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateas (Greece)) — Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Ntolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Chatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios Th. Liotakis, Vasileos Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodioikisi Dramas-Kavalas, Xanthis
      (Case C-453/08) (1)

      (Common fisheries policy - Fisheries in the Mediterranean - Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 - Article 1(2) and (3) - Prohibition of the use of certain types of fishing net - Measures supplementary to or going beyond the minimum requirements of that regulation which were adopted before its entry into force - Conditions of validity)
      (2010/C 288/16)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Simvoulio tis Epikrateas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Ntolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Chatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios Th. Liotakis, Vasileos Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas

         Defendants: Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodioikisi Dramas-Kavalas-Xanthis

         Intervening parties: Alieftikos Agrotikos Sinetairismos gri-gri nomou Kavalas (MAKEDONIA), Panellinia Enosi Ploioktiton Mesis Alieias (PEPMA)

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikrateas — Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 2(3) and 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean — Prohibition on the use of certain types of fishing net — Scope of the possibility, established by the regulation, for Member States to adopt measures that are supplementary or go beyond the minimum requirements of the regulation

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2550/2000 of 17 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the entry into force of that regulation does not affect the validity of a supplementary national measure, a prohibition, which was adopted before that entry into force and, secondly, that those provisions do not preclude such a measure, provided that that prohibition is in conformity with the common fisheries policy, that it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued and that it is not contrary to the principle of equal treatment, those being matters which it is for the national court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2000 in Case T-261/97 Eleonore Orthmann v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Scientific or technical services — Advancement from Category B to Category A — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/21
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 September 2000
                      of 19 September 2000
                                                                         in Case T-259/97: Rui Teixeira Neves against the Court of
                                                                                Justice of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-252/97: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                           (Officials — Duty to act in good faith and maintain the
                                                                         dignity of the office — Principle of the separation of powers
                                                                         — Freedom of association — Disciplinary measures —
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries                                                 Sanction)
— Request for additional import licences — Case of hardship
— Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation                                                 (2000/C 316/39)
(EEC) No 404/93 — Limitation of damage — Action for
                            annulment)                                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         In Case T-259/97: Rui Teixeira Neves, represented by Adriano
                         (2000/C 316/38)                                 Encarnação, of the Oporto Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the applicant’s address, 100 Rue de Steinsel,
                                                                         L-7254 Bereldange, against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: Initially T. Millett, subsequently
                   (Language of the case: German)                        M. Schauss and F. Ferreira Pinto) — first, an action for
                                                                         annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 January
                                                                         1997 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of
In Case T-252/97: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in                     relegation in step and, secondly, an action for damages seeking
Frankfurt am Main (Germany), G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Colog-              an order against the defendant requiring it to make good the
ne, Berrenrather Straße 313, Cologne (Germany) v Com-                    non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of that
mission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Bor-                  decision — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
chardt and H. van Vliet), supported by Kingdom of Spain                  composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
(Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by French Republic (Agents:            P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for partial              12 September 2000, in which it:
annulment of the Commission decision of 10 July 1997 on                  1.    dismisses the application.
the adoption of transitional measures in favour of the applicant
within the framework of the common organisation of the                   2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.
market in bananas — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for           (1) OJ 1997 C 357.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those                                 of 20 September 2000
      incurred by the Commission;
                                                                         in Case T-261/97 Eleonore Orthmann v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
      their own costs.                                                   (Officials — Scientific or technical services — Advancement
                                                                         from Category B to Category A — Interest in bringing
                                                                                proceedings)
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.97.
                                                                                (2000/C 316/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         In Case T-261/97: Eleonore Orthmann, an official of the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, posted to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Institute of the Environment at the Joint Research Centre                  owing to the absence of a staff report for the period 1993-
in Ispra (Italy), residing in Bodio-Lomnago, Varese (Italy),               1995 during the 1996 promotion procedure — the Court of
represented by G. Marchesini, a lawyer practising before the               First Instance, composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
Court of Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for            M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10                   delivered a judgment on 19 September 2000 in which it:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. dal Ferro) — appli-
                                                                           1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages for pecuniary
cation for annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the
                                                                                harm in Case T-200/98;
applicant’s candidature for a Grade A post with the Institute of
the Environment at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, the
annulment of the procedure calling for a show of interest used             2.    Orders the Council, in Case T-200/98, to pay the applicant
by the Commission to fill a temporary post at that Institute                     the sum of BEF 70 000 by way of compensation for the non-
and, in the alternative, annulment of the appointment of the                     pecuniary harm sustained by her;
candidate accepted chosen that procedure — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                   3.    Dismisses the application for annulment in Case T-101/98;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2000 in which it:                                             4.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay one half of
                                                                                those incurred by the applicant in Case T-200/98. The parties
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                      are to bear their own costs in Case T-101/98.
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.98 and C 86, 27.3.99.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      of 13 September 2000
                     of 19 September 2000                                  in Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98 Gisela Stodtmei-
          ster v Council of the European Union (1)                         (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
                                                                           Commission documents — Inspection report — Exceptions
                                                                           relating to protection of the public interest (inspections and
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Action for annulment                              investigations) and of commercial secrecy)
   — Absence of staff report — Action for compensation)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/42)
                          (2000/C 316/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV, established at
In Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98: Gisela Stodtmeister,                Voorthuizen, Netherlands, represented by E.A. Buys, of the
an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in              Arnhem Bar, v Commission of the European Communities
Tervuren (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and                     (Agents: P. van Nuffel, U. Wölker and W. Wils) — application
L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               for annulment of the Commission decision of 17 November
Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue                  1998 refusing to grant the applicant access to a report
Beck, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer              concerning measures taken to combat swine fever in the
and M.-G. Lalande) — application for annulment of the                      Netherlands — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and
Grade A 3 during the 1997 promotion procedure and, second,                 N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
damages for the harm allegedly sustained by the applicant                  13 September 2000, in which it:


title: Case T-243/02: Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include the
      applicant’s name in the list of officials most deserving of         By decision of 23 July 2001, the Commission department to
      promotion to Grade B 2 and the decision not to promote              which the applicant is posted requested that proceedings be
      him to that grade in the 2001 promotions procedure;                 initiated to recommence other proceedings allegedly initiated
                                                                          previously for a finding of professional incompetence of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               applicant. According to the applicant, the Director General of
                                                                          DG ADMIN interpreted that request as a request to ‘initiate
                                                                          proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations’.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the documents on which his
                                                                          department based its request show the imprecise way in which
The applicant in the present case, an official at Grade B 3               it is handling the file. The file in no way demonstrates that the
working for the defendant, challenges the appointing auth-                proceedings referred to were initiated in 1994 and 1996.
ority’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 2 in the context of
the 2001 promotions procedure.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                          —      lack of precision as regards the reopening of former
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                         proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations or
principles of equal treatment, that officials should have
                                                                                the opening of new proceedings, without setting out the
reasonable career prospects and of the principle of sound
                                                                                applicant’s conduct complained of;
administration.
                                                                          —      infringement of the rule audi alteram partem;
                                                                          —      infringement of the principle non bis in idem;
                                                                          —      breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to
Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Com-                               be protected;
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          —      breach of the principle of proportionality;
                        (Case T-243/02)                                   —      error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers;
                        (2002/C 247/37)                                   —      lack of statement of reasons;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 August 2002 by J, represented
by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
                                                                          (formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 Feb-
      ruary 2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of                                             (Case T-244/02)
      29 December 2001;
—     annul the decision of 23 July 2001 asking DG ADMIN ‘to                                        (2002/C 247/38)
      initiate proceedings for a finding of repeated professional
      shortcomings as soon as possible’;                                                      (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of 19 September 2001 concerning the
      initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
—     award damages to the applicant for the non-material                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 25 000;                    9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as
                                                                          G.D. Searle & Co), represented by Graham Farrington, Farring-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               ton & Co Solicitors, Reading (UK).


title: Case T-313/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/32

         Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Heede v OHIM (Matrix-Energetics)
   (Case T-313/11)
   2011/C 238/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Günter Heede (Walldorf-Baden, Germany) (represented by R. Utz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2011 in Case R 1848/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matrix-Energetics’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 44 — application No 8 339 798

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the descriptive character of the mark applied for cannot be determined and the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character; the Board of Appeal erred in making print-outs from the internet, which dated from after the date of filing of the application for registration, the subject-matter of its decision; and furthermore isolated, illegal instances of use of an originally distinctive (fanciful) description on the part of third parties, which commenced after the date of filing, cannot have a negative influence on the registrability of a Community trade mark.


title: Case T-355/04: Action brought on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc. coop. arl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/58

         Action brought on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc. coop. arl against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-355/04)
   (2004/C 262/107)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc. coop. arl, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the decision of the Commission of the European Communities in the letter of the Director General of DG Agriculture dated 28 April 2004 (AGRI/11451/28.04.2004) rejecting Co-Frutta's initial application for access to documents containing information on traders registered in the Community as importers of bananas (OCM bananas) for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, together with the implied rejection of Co-Frutta's confirmatory application submitted by letter of 3 May 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the refusal of its request for access to documents is unlawful inasmuch as it stems from misapplication by the Commission of the procedural and substantive rules governing the subject-matter. In particular:

               —

               the Commission infringed the procedural time-limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Decision 2001/937 (2) and refused access on the basis of belated opposition by certain Member States;

               —

               the measure is manifestly contradictory in so far as the delay was caused by the need to consult the Member States. Yet the Commission itself maintains that, irrespective of the opposition by those Member States, it would in any event have refused access. Thus the Commission is also in breach of the relevant rules which required it to reach an unfettered decision, since it had already made up its mind as to the final decision to be adopted;

               —

               the Commission relied on one of the exceptions provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001 to refuse access, without putting forward any ground in that regard; in any event, as to the exception relied on (protection of commercial secrecy under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001), the applicant notes that the conditions for the application of that exception do not exist since in the OCM banana sector there cannot be said to be any commercial secrets to be protected, in the terms stated by the Commission;

               —

               the Commission failed to rule in regard to a series of documents mentioned in the applicant's request for access, thereby infringing the principle of sound administration;

               —

               the Commission did not grant partial access in respect of the documents from the States which did not oppose disclosure.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure (OJ L 345 of 29.12.2001, p. 94).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 1999 in Case C-212/98: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 93/83/EEC)

text:
C 47/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 December 1999
                      of 25 November 1999
                                                                           in Case C-234/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Leeds Industrial Tribunal): G.C. Allen and Others v
in Case C-212/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                   Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd (1)
                          ties v Ireland (1)
                                                                           (Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
                                                                            of undertakings — Transfer within a group of companies)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive
                             93/83/EEC)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/17)
                           (2000/C 47/16)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case C-234/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Leeds Industrial
                                                                           Tribunal, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between G.C. Allen and
In Case C-212/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Others and Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd — on the
(Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — appli-                 interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the              1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative                 relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                      of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of                      (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to                   of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retrans-          de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and
mission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) and/or by failing to inform the             P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                  judgment on 2 December 1999, in which it has ruled:
of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón,
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                           1. Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
given a judgment on 25 November 1999, in which it:
                                                                                safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
                                                                                undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses can apply to a
                                                                                transfer between two companies in the same group which have
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                                the same ownership, management and premises and which are
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                engaged in the same works.
    comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September
    1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright
    and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting   2. Directive 77/187 applies to a situation in which a company
    and cable retransmission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations      belonging to a group decides to subcontract to another company
    under that directive;                                                       in the same group contracts for driveage work in mines in so far
                                                                                as the transaction involves the transfer of an economic entity
                                                                                between the two companies. The term ‘economic entity’ refers to
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                             an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the
                                                                                exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.