title: Case T-208/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/31

         Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)
   (Case T-208/17)
   (2017/C 168/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘HP’ — EU trade mark No 52 449

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1002/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-673/13: Action brought on 9 December 2013 — European Coalition to End Animal Experiments v ECHA

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

         Action brought on 9 December 2013 — European Coalition to End Animal Experiments v ECHA
   (Case T-673/13)
   2014/C 112/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency of 10 October 2013 in Case A-004-2012 relating to section 8.7.2 of Annex X of the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (developmental toxicity studies in a second species), insofar as it relates to a second species pre-natal developmental study;

               —

               Remit the case to ECHA, with a direction that it consider where there is a need to conduct a pre-natal developmental study on the registrant’s substance, based on the outcome of the first study and all other relevant available data.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal was wrong to say that the cumulative principle in the REACH testing annexes meant that a second species was the default requirement at Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 tonnage. In support of this plea the applicant claims that:

                           —

                           The Board of Appeal’s reasoning represents a non sequitur. Testing requirements do not necessarily increase as one moves to a higher tonnage annex: the cumulative principle is often not relevant for particular endpoints, and is not for developmental toxicity;

                           —

                           Column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex X, by its explicit terms, requires a study in ‘one species’, not two — the same as column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX;

                           —

                           The Board of Appeal’s reasoning ignores the clear words of column 2 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX, which provides that whether a second species study is required at Annex IX or Annex X tonnage depends on the outcome of the first species study and all other relevant available data: it is not automatic;

                           —

                           The Board of Appeal’s conclusion makes no sense in policy terms: it ascribes to the REACH legislators an intention that, at a lower Annex level (Annex IX), the need for a second species study is dependent on scientific evaluation, whereas at a higher Annex level (Annex X), science is irrelevant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal was wrong to say that the legislators had brought forward an Annex X requirement — a second species developmental toxicity study as a default requirement — to Annex IX. In support of this plea the applicant claims that:

                           —

                           The reasoning is based on a false premise: column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex X does not impose a second species study as a default requirement (see the first plea), and it follows that there is no such requirement to bring forward to Annex IX (even supposing that that were otherwise the correct approach).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal was wrong to soy that the requirement in column 2 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX (for evaluation of the need for a second species study) does not carry across to Annex X. In support of this plea the applicant claims that:

                           —

                           By its explicit terms, this is precisely what column 2 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX does say, by the words ‘or the next’. The approach for the two annexes is identical.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal was wrong to say that only adaptation under column 2 of section 8.7 of Annex X or Annex XI can obviate the need for a second species study at Annex X tonnage. In support of this plea the applicant claims that:

                           —

                           Adaptation, whether under column 2 or Annex XI, only becomes relevant if there is first a testing requirement under column 1. With column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex X, there is no requirement for a second species developmental toxicity study until and unless evaluation of the first species study and other available evidence points to the need for a second species study (see above).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case C-486/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — X, other party: Heffingsambtenaar van de gemeente Z

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — X, other party: Heffingsambtenaar van de gemeente Z
   (Case C-486/12)
   2013/C 26/45
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Respondent: Heffingsambtenaar van de gemeente Z

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the provision of access (pursuant to Article 79(2) of the Wet GBA [Law on personal data held by local authorities]) constitute compliance with the obligation of communication of the data undergoing processing as referred to in the second indent of Article 12(a) of … Directive [95/46/EC (1)]?

               2.

               Does Article 12(a) of the Directive preclude the levying of fees in respect of the communication, by means of a transcript from the municipal database, of the personal data undergoing processing?

               3.

               If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: is the levying of the present fees excessive within the meaning of Article 12(a) of the Directive?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case T-644/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014  — Kimman v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports — Appraisal report — 2009 appraisal exercise — Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations — Opinion of the ad-hoc committee — Distortion — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Kimman v Commission
   (Case T-644/11 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reports - Appraisal report - 2009 appraisal exercise - Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations - Opinion of the ad-hoc committee - Distortion - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
   2014/C 282/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Eugène Emile Marie Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission, not yet published, seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission (F-74/10), first, in that it declares admissible the second plea in law, the six first parts of the third plea in law and the fourth plea in law, except the claim that the work done by the applicant in the interest of the institution had not been taken into account, raised by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and, second, in that it orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the appellant’s costs related to those proceedings;

               2.

               Dismisses the main appeal;

               3.

               Rejects the action brought by Mr Eugène Emile Marie Kimman before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Orders Mr Kimman to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the main appeal;

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs in the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-84/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 26 February 2009 — X v Skatteverket

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 26 February 2009 — X v Skatteverket
   (Case C-84/09)
   2009/C 90/30
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Regeringsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 138 and 20 of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the transport out of the territory of the State of origin must begin within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition?

               2.

               Similarly, are those Articles to be interpreted as meaning that the transport must end in the country of destination within a certain period of time for the sale to be exempt from tax and for there to be an intra-Community acquisition?

               3.

               Would the answers to questions 1 and 2 be affected if that which is acquired is a new means of transport and the person acquiring the goods is an individual who intends ultimately to use the means of transport in a particular Member State?

               4.

               In connection with an intra-Community acquisition, at which time must the assessment be made as to whether a means of transport is new in accordance with Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive [2006/112/EC] on the common system of value added tax?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)


title: Case T-197/09: Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Slovenia v Commission

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/54

         Action brought on 20 May 2009 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-197/09)
   2009/C 180/101
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, of the State Legal Service)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), (notified under document number C(2009) 1945, (1) in so far as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs;

               —

               an order that the Commission should reimburse the costs incurred by the Republic of Slovenia in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision the Commission excluded certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia from Community financing for the financial years 2005 and 2006, on account of deficiencies in key controls and of incorrect control approach and tools, and also ordered a flat-rate financial correction of 5 % for immediate payment, for which it relied on the audit of national control carried out by its services in that Member State in March 2005.
   In support of its claims the applicant argues, in particular, that the Commission:

               —

               on account of a mistaken evaluation of the facts of the case, incorrectly applied Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2) or Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, (3) for it carried out the audit too late; it chose for it an atypical region for which conspicuously small fields were checked; in that audit it took no account of International Standard 530 on auditing and without cause it censured the applicant for using that standard as a yardstick;

               —

               contravened the principle of the prohibition of unequal treatment of Member States, because it carried out its audit of national checks in the other Member States on a substantially greater, and therefore more representative, sample;

               —

               applied a measure, namely the 5 % financial correction, which, on account of the limited risk to the Fund, considering the amount of the resources assigned, is plainly disproportionate to the gravity and extent of the infringements found to exist;

               —

               acted contrary to the principle of good faith and fairness, for its services did not challenge the correctness of the instructions providing for the use of that yardstick, or, until autumn 2005, draw the problems to the applicant’s attention.

      (1)  OJ L 75, 21.3.2009, p. 15.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 18, p. 18).


title: Case F-94/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Rebizant, Vlandas and Vocino v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2006 procedure — Multiplier rate — Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Promotion threshold)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/71

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Rebizant, Vlandas and Vocino v Commission
   (Case F-94/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 procedure - Multiplier rate - Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion threshold)
   2010/C 24/129
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean Rebizant (Karlsruhe, Germany), Georges Vlandas (Brussels, Belgium) and Vinceno Vocino (Varese, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants to grade AD13 under the 2006 promotion procedure and, second, declaration that the decision setting the promotion thresholds applicable to officials under the “Research” and “Joint Research Centre” budgets is illegal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 45.


title: Case T-457/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA (Public procurement — Tender procedure — Provision of IT consultancy assistance services — Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Compliance with award criteria laid down in the tender specifications — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA
   (Case T-457/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Tender procedure - Provision of IT consultancy assistance services - Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Compliance with award criteria laid down in the tender specifications - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 32/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented initially by A. Cuvillier, subsequently by S. Gabbi and D. Detken, and finally by D. Detken, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of EFSA of 1 October 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to Call for Tenders EFSA/IT/2007/14 for IT Consultancy Assistance (OJ 2007/S 97-118626) and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in response to Call for Tenders EFSA/IT/2007/14 for IT Consultancy Assistance and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

               2.

               Orders EFSA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-488/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN)
   (Case T-488/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 190/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Falcon Sporting Goods AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Weigell, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004 (Case R 176/2004-2) concerning the refusal to register the word mark ‘BIN LADIN’
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-64/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 101/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          26.4.2003
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                             —     Articles 14 to 16: there are no provisions dealing
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                 with access to the system. The reference to prohib-
                           lic of Germany                                              itions under competition law is not sufficient as
                                                                                these do not contain any rules on access;
                           (Case C-64/03)                                        —     Articles 12 and 13: there are no rules under the laws
                                                                                specifically governing natural gas which deal with
                                                                                the unbundling of the accounts of integrated natural
                          (2003/C 101/33)                                              gas undertakings;
                                                                           —     The Federal Republic of Germany has failed adequately to
                                                                                transpose:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            —     Article 2: defining provisions contained in a measure
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                           of Community law must, inasmuch as they are —
ties on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                             as here — necessary for the proper application of
Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald, Legal Adviser                             the Community provisions by national bodies, be
to the Commission of the European Communities, and Hans                                correctly transposed in national law;
Støvlbæk, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
European Communities, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                                —     Articles 7(2) and 10(2): the general competition
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                                rules under national law apply only to undertakings
Cruz, of the European Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                                in a dominant market position and for that reason
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                do not constitute an adequate transposition of the
                                                                                prohibition of discrimination;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      —     Article 15(1) in conjunction with Article 17(1):
                                                                                unlike the position in the electricity sector, German
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                           law does not provide for an obligation to state
                                                                                reasons in the event of refusal to grant access to the
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/30/EC ( 1) of the European                              system;
      Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concern-
      ing common rules for the internal market in natural gas,                   —     Article 18: no criteria governing the designation of
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                         eligible customers have been published or notified
      obligations under Article 29 of that directive;                                  to the Commission;
                                                                                —     Article 21(2): the arbitration authority provided for
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs                           in Article 21(2) has not been designated.
      of the proceedings.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the period for transposition of Directive 98/30/EC
expired on 10 August 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany
has thus far failed to transpose at all or failed to transpose
adequately a number of provisions of that directive.                       Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
—     The Federal Republic of Germany has failed totally to
      transpose:
                                                                                (Case C-73/03)
      —     Article 5 in conjunction with Articles 7(3) and 10(3):
            it is clear that there have been no notifiable and                                       (2003/C 101/34)
            technically verifiable ‘technical rules establishing
            the minimum technical design and operational
            requirements’ for the ‘connection to the system of
            LNG facilities, storage facilities, other transmission         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            or distribution systems, and direct lines’. At any rate,       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            no such technical rules have been notified to the              Communities on 19 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
            Commission, nor is the Commission aware of any                 represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, with
            such rules;                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-267/14 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Buzzi Unicem SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-297/11, Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/20

         Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Buzzi Unicem SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-297/11, Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-267/14 P)
   2014/C 282/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro and A. Sodano, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal and, consequently:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety for failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons, and for the consequent infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence and the principle of due process;

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety for excess and abuse of powers and for the consequent reversal of the burden of proof;

               —

               annul the contested decision, in whole or in part, as being ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 18 [of Regulation No 1/2003]; and for breach of the principles of proportionality and due process, and failure to hear argument on an inter partes basis, in breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as Buzzi Unicem is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings in addition to those relating to Case T-297/11.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               A.

               First ground of appeal, alleging error of law; failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds; infringement of the rights of the defence; and breach of the principle of due process
               By its first ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by error of law, and failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds, in so far as it finds that the generic reference, in the decision opening infringement proceedings, to presumed infringements is adequate reason for a request for information under Article 18(3), incorporating the ‘minimum degree of clarity’ required by the provision as regards the subject-matter and purpose of the request.

               B.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law in relation to the plea that the Commission exceeded and abused its powers, and the consequent reversal of the burden of proof
               By its second ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment and of law by rejecting the complaint relating to the abuse of powers by the Commission in requesting information under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) despite the lack of any evidence of an infringement, in so far as the General Court held that Buzzi Unicem did not make an express and reasoned application enabling the question whether there was sufficient evidence to be determined and in so far as, without stating any grounds, the General Court rejected the complaint concerning the reversal of the burden of proof.

               C.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging error of fact and of law, and an illogical statement of grounds, in relation to the plea that the Commission had exceeded its powers under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003
               By its third ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem alleges misapplication of the principles relating to the duties of cooperation incumbent upon undertakings, in so far as the General Court held that the Commission had correctly required the undertakings to respond not merely to factual questions but with information that the Commission knew was not available to the undertaking and with additional information that the Commission could have obtained independently.

               D.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging error of law and failure to state adequate grounds in relation to the complaints alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and excess of powers in respect of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003
               By its fourth ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds, and by error of law, in relation to the breach of the principle of proportionality and the ensuing excessive burden on the parties resulting from the requests for information, from the reiteration and reformulation of those requests, from the proposal of new variables and the putting of new questions, from the refusal to limit the information to be furnished, from the choice also to request, by decision, information which had already been provided earlier.

               E.

               Fifth ground of appeal, alleging error of law and failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ and in relation to the breach of the principle of due process
               By its fifth ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ were not binding on the Commission where, having decided to ask undertakings to comment on a draft decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission thereafter did not take any account of the comments received and significantly amended the text of the final decision. Buzzi Unicem also contests the failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the principle of due process on the part of the Commission through the way in which it had exercised the power to request information.

      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-79/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2012 — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Directia Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamali Sibiu

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2012 — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Directia Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamali Sibiu
   (Case C-79/12)
   2012/C 126/11
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Mora IPR SRL

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Directia Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamali Sibiu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 211 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a condition (such as the requirement that a deferred payment certificate be obtained, within a specific period, on the conditions established by order of the Minister for the Economy and Finance) additional to the condition relating to the entries in the VAT return to be made by taxable persons who are authorised not to pay to the customs authorities VAT on importation?

               2.

               Are Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding repeated legislative intervention such as that provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Decree-Law No 22 of 28 March 2007 or in paragraph 69 of Decree-Law No 106 of 4 October 2007, by which Article 157(4) of the Fiscal Code was amended to the effect that only some taxable persons for VAT purposes (who have imported, or who are thought to have imported, goods after 15 April 2007 and who have obtained a deferred payment certificate) from among those in identical situations (inasmuch as they hold goods imported temporarily during the period preceding accession) are allowed not to pay VAT at customs?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case F-81/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014  — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/32

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-81/14)
   2014/C 388/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, D. de Abreu Caldas and R. Metz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 13) in the 2013 promotion procedure of the Committee of the Regions.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Committee of the Regions’ decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Removal from the register of C-313/95

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


title: Case C-321/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz
   (Case C-321/07)
   (2007/C 283/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Mannheim
   Party to the main proceedings
   Karl Schwarz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it — contrary to Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) — possible under Community law for a citizen of the EU to hold a valid German right to drive and a second right to drive issued by another Member State, both of which were obtained before the accession to the EU of the foreign Member State and — if so —

               2.

               Does the withdrawal — before the entry into force of the Regulation on the right to drive (Fahrerlaubnisverordnung; ‘FeV’) of 1 January 1999 — of the later second German right to drive as a consequence of a drunkenness offence mean that the validity in Germany of the first foreign right to drive, which was issued earlier, also no longer requires to be recognised after accession of the foreign Member State, even where the period of the ban imposed in Germany has expired?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).


title: Case C-111/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-111/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/42
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-511/10: Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/29

         Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission
   (Case T-511/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 August 2010 of the Secretariat General of the European Commission (Ref. SG.E.3/FM/MIP/mbp/psi — Ares(2010) 508190 — 12/08/2010) rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant through its letter dated 31 December 2009, registered on 5 January 2010 (Ref. GESTDEM 2009/4890); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision of 12 August 2010 (Ref. SG.E.3/FM/MIP/mbp/psi — Ares(2010) 508190 — 12/08/2010) rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 31 December 2009, registered on 5 January 2010 (Ref. GESTDEM 2009/4890), in which the applicant, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), requested the review of the positions taken by the Publications Office of the European Union in its respective letter of 11 December 2009, following the applicant’s initial request dated 9 October 2009, concerning access to all requests for quotation pertaining to all lots of the Publications Office’s framework contracts No 6011, 6102, 6103, 6020, 6121, 6031 (apart from lot 4) and 10030.
   In support of its claim the applicant argues that the defendant did not proceed to an individual assessment of the requested documents. Moreover, the applicant contends that the justification provided by the defendant with regard to the protection of the economic policy of the European Union, the protection of the commercial interests and the public security reasons should be rejected as wholly unfounded.

      (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 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Case C-60/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž
   (Case C-60/12)
   2012/C 109/13
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Vrchní soud v Praze

      Party to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marián Baláž

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (‘the Framework Decision’) be interpreted as an autonomous concept of European Union law?

               2(a)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what general defining characteristics must a court of a State which can, on the initiative of the person concerned, hear that person’s case in relation to a decision issued by an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority) have in order to qualify as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

               2(b)

               May an Austrian independent administrative tribunal (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) be regarded as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

               2(c)

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision be interpreted by the competent authority of the executing State under the law of the State whose authority issued a decision within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision, or under the law of the State deciding on the recognition and enforcement of such a decision?

               3.

               Is the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’ before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ under Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision maintained even if the person concerned cannot have a case tried before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ directly, but must first contest a decision of an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority), the submission of such a contestation rendering that authority’s decision ineffective and leading to the initiation of an ordinary procedure before the same authority, and only against its decision in that ordinary procedure may an appeal be brought before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’?
               In relation to maintaining the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’, is it necessary to decide questions of whether an appeal heard by a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ is in the nature of an ordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a decision not yet final) or an extraordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a final decision) and whether a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, on the basis of that appeal, has the authority to review the case in its entirety both in fact and in law?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.


title: Case C-130/00: Action brought on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/19
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be         Such conduct clearly conflicts with Community law, as
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to           interpreted by the Court of Justice, and specifically
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz, (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl. No.
11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a                     (a) with the principles of effectiveness and judicial protection
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                    of rights recognised by Community law;
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by          (b) with the prohibition of making the exercise of rights
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                    conferred by Community law excessively difficult;
case?
                                                                        (c) with the prohibition of rules of evidence which place on
                                                                             the taxpayer the onus of proving that the taxes unduly
                                                                             paid have not been passed on to others.
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-129/00)
                         (2000/C 163/34)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Court of Justice on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of the               Action brought on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of
European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Adviser, Acting as Agent, with an address for service in                                           of Germany
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (Case C-130/00)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
(a) Declare that, by keeping in force the second paragraph of                                    (2000/C 163/35)
     Article 29 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 which, as
     interpreted and applied by the administrative and judicial
     authorities, lays down rules of evidence in relation to the        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     passing on of taxes levied in breach of Community                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     provisions which in practice make exercise of the right to         ties on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of the European
     reimbursement of such taxes impossible or in any event             Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer of the
     excessively difficult for the taxpayer and as such are             Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
     incompatible with the legal principle laid down by the             ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     Court of Justice regarding the recovery of sums paid but           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 Kirchberg,
     not due, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC         Luxembourg.
     Treaty;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the
                                                                             Commission the necessary measures to implement into
The Commission considers that the specific way in which the                  domestic law European Parliament and Council Directive
Italian provision is interpreted by the Italian judiciary and in             97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
particular the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ultimately places                 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the
on the taxpayer the burden of proving that he did not pass on                coordination of proposals for the award of public service
to his customers the amount of the unlawful tax, making it                   contracts, public supply contracts and public works con-
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure reimbursement              tracts respectively within the prescribed period the Federal
of the taxes. The Italian Administration has systematically,                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
since the entry into force of Law No 428/90, opposed any                     under the EC Treaty and that directive.
application for reimbursement based on the illegality, under
Community law, of the levy or other charges made in
connection with customs operations or consumer taxes.                   2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, by order of that court
                                                                          of 7 April 2000, in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels
Case C-105/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on                                          Express Ltd
13 October 1998.
                                                                                (Case C-133/00)
(1) OJ L 328 of 28 November 1997, p. 1.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                                            (2000/C 163/37)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, of 7 April 2000, which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
                                                                          Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express
                                                                          Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                          1. Given that the informed view of responsible bodies that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i                        amendment is needed if a legislative provision is to achieve
Norrbottens Län of 28 March 2000 in the case of Ingemar                       a certain effect is likely to be consistent only with a view
        Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen Norrbottens Län                         that the provision, before amendment, does not have that
                                                                              effect, and given also the previously expressed views of the
                                                                              ESC, the European Parliament, the Commission and the
                           (Case C-131/00)                                    Council’s Common Position Paper on the subject of the
                                                                              exceptions to Article 1.3 of Directive 93/104/EEC(1)
                                                                              suggesting that, as yet, there is an exception from the
                           (2000/C 163/36)                                    benefits of the Directive of all who work in the road
                                                                              transport sector of activity but that such an exception has
                                                                              been and is entirely unjustified, how far, if at all, are we
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        enabled to infer from such non-legislative materials either
European Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Norrbot-                    that:
tens Län of 28 March 2000, received at the Court Registry on
6 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ingemar
                                                                              (a) as yet the proper construction of the wording of Article
Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens Län on the follow-
                                                                                1.3 is one which excludes all such persons, or
ing question:
                                                                              (b) that such a reading would not represent a just and
With reference to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                        purposive construction of the Article?
3508/92 (1), the Court of Justice is requested to give a
preliminary ruling on the question whether that article is to be
understood as meaning that entitlement to aid is excluded                 2. Whatever the conclusion is to Question 1, if, in the course
where notes have not been made in the animal keeper’s register                of our task of interpreting our national laws in the light of
(stall journal) (2).                                                          the wording and purpose of the Directive, we encounter
                                                                              what we take to be a broad purpose (‘every worker in the
                                                                              European Community will have a right to … annual paid
                                                                              leave’) but also, given no less prominence in the very same
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992                   provision, a wording (‘shall apply to all sectors of activity
    establishing an integrated administration and control system for          ... with the exception of .... road .... transport’) which
    certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).                      appears to be significantly destructive of that broad
(2) Kept in accordance with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)              purpose, at all events on the facts before us, are we entitled
    No 820/97 of 21 April 1997, establishing a system for the                 (and if so, by reference to what principles) to apply our
    identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding           national laws to the facts of the particular case before us
    the labelling of beef products (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 1) and the State        so as to give effect to that broad purpose notwithstanding
    Agricultural Board’s rules (SJVFS 1994:190) on the marking and
                                                                              the clarity of the wording appearing to exclude that
    registration of animals.
                                                                              purpose on such facts?
                                                                          3. To raise similar issues in a less abstract way, are all workers
                                                                              employed in the road transport sector of activity referred
                                                                              to in Article 1.3 necessarily excluded from the scope of
                                                                              Directive 93/104?


title: Case C-71/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Franco Campoli v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Pension — Application of the correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements established by the Regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Objection of illegality)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Franco Campoli v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-71/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Pension - Application of the correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence - Transitional arrangements established by the Regulation amending the Staff Regulations - Objection of illegality)
   (2008/C 223/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Franco Campoli (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as partially inadmissible and partially unfounded the action for annulment of the appellant's pension payslips from May to July 2004, in as much as they applied for the first time a weighting calculated in an allegedly unlawful manner on the basis of the average cost of living in the appellant's country of residence, rather than, as previously, in relation to the cost of living in the capital of that country — Effect of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials on the system of weighting — Transitional system for officials who retired before 1 April 2004 — Method of calculating weighting and respect for the principle of the equality of treatment — Obligation to state reasons
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the principal appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-323/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2014  — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 7 July 2014 — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-323/14)
   2014/C 315/66
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helm AG

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Question referred

   Is Council Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 (1) invalid, to the extent to which it relates to the Jushi Group, in view of the fact that the Commission did not determine within three months of the initiation of the investigation, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation, (2) whether the Jushi Group, which was included in the sample, met the criteria set out in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation?

      (1)  Implementing Regulation of 9 March 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 67, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case T-19/03: Action brought on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula Konstantopoulou against Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
5.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 83/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award EUR 1 000 by way of damages as compensation
                                                                                for non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex
                                                                                aequo et bono;
The applicant is an official of the Commission. She was
assigned to Cadarache and then reassigned to Brussels. The
applicant challenged the decision to reassign her in Case                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
T-355/01, which resulted in a settlement being reached with
the Commission and in the applicant’s being seconded to
Cadarache. However, the Commission took the view that the
applicant had received the weighting for France and the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
expatriation allowance without being entitled to do so. The
applicant was also deprived of the ‘secretarial allowance’ and
of the fixed allowance for travelling expenses.                           By his action the applicant, an official of the Commission,
                                                                          challenges the validity of his staff report for the period 1995-
In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has             1997 and claims damages for the faults allegedly committed
been an infringement of Articles 59 and 64 of the Staff                   by the Commission in preparing that report.
Regulations and Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
and an infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and
Articles 5 to 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The               He claims that the report infringes Article 43 of the Staff
applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the                 Regulations and the provisions of the Guide to Staff Reports.
obligation to state reasons and an infringement of the principle          Thus, notwithstanding the opinion of the Joint Committee
of non-discrimination.                                                    on Staff Reports pointing out significant procedural and
                                                                          substantive irregularities, the appeal assessor did not find it
In the alternative, as regards the weighting for France and the           necessary to correct them. In addition, that the report was
expatriation allowance, the applicant claims that there has               completed after an unreasonable period of time was the
been an infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.              Commission’s fault alone. Similarly, the assessors systemati-
The applicant also claims that there has been an infringement             cally refused to hold a prior interview with the applicant as
of Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, an                   provided for by the Guide to Staff Reports. Furthermore, the
infringement of the general principle that an institution must            quite irregular drafting of the report reflected a more general
comply with the rules which it itself has made and a breach of            ‘mobbing’ attitude from which the applicant had suffered for
the obligation to state reasons as regards the secretarial                some years.
allowance.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the very negative assessments in his
Last, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement            report are clearly unfounded and that the Commission has
of the general principle of sound management and good                     failed in its duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
administration and a breach of the duty to have regard for the            has failed to observe the principle of sound administration.
welfare of officials.
Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula Kon-
                                                                          stantopoulou against Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-16/03)
                         (2003/C 83/48)                                                             (Case T-19/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/49)
An action against Commission of the European Communities                                      (Language of the case: French)
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula
                                                                          Konstantopoulou, residing in Ioannina (Greece), represented
—     annul his staff report for the reference period 1995-1997;          by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/22                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 21 January 2003 by ‘S’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board of 23 October
      2002 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in general                                   (Case T-21/03)
      competition CJ/LA/14;
                                                                                (2003/C 83/50)
—     annul the express rejection of the complaint lodged by
      the applicant as notified on 9 November 2003 by letter
      from Marc Ronayne;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 January 2003 by S, represented
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant, a candidate in general competition CJ/LA/14,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
organised by the Court of Justice with a view to constituting a
reserve list of Greek-language lawyer-linguists, objects to not
being admitted to the oral test for having failed to obtain the            —     Annul the decision of 11 March 2002 of the Head of the
minimum requisite marks in the first compulsory written                          ‘Occupational disease and accident insurance’ sector
paper (translation of a legal text drafted in French).                           rejecting the applicant’s request to have removed from
                                                                                the file forwarded to the medical officer all reports drawn
                                                                                up to her knowledge relating to her ability, efficiency and
                                                                                conduct;
In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to withdraw from the file forwarded
                                                                                to the medical officer the originals of the reports in
—     failure to observe the duty to state reasons. The applicant                question, send them to the applicant and destroy all
      claims in that regard that the selection board cannot rely                 copies;
      on the secrecy of its deliberations in order not to fulfil
      the obligation to give reasons to a candidate who requests
      them;                                                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     irregularities in the conduct of the tests in the competition
      and breach of the principle of equality as between the
      candidates in that, in view of the system for preserving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the anonymity of the candidates, the applicant is justified
      in wondering whether the written test script attributed to
      her when the tests were being marked is indeed hers. That
      method for ensuring anonymity, which she describes as                The applicant in these proceedings objects to all the reports
      unusual, constitutes, furthermore, a substantive irregu-             relating to her ability, efficiency and conduct, which have to
      larity.                                                              her knowledge been drawn up, not placed in her personal file
                                                                           and communicated to the defendant’s medical officer, being
                                                                           made available to the medical committee called upon to give a
—     infringement of the competition notice and of Article 5              decision on her case in response to a request for her illness to
      of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; manifest error of             be recognised as occupational in origin.
      assessment. The applicant states in that respect that the
      purpose of the test in question was to assess whether
      each of the candidates had perfect command of Greek
      and good knowledge of French on the basis of objective               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
      criteria which were identical for each of the candidates.            her right to a fair hearing and of Articles 26 and 43 of the
                                                                           Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-100/09: Action brought on 11 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/27

         Action brought on 11 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-100/09)
   2009/C 113/50
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L Jelínek and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, (1) or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for implementing the directive into the domestic legal order expired on 8 March 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27.


title: Case T-402/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Katalagarianakis v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Review of classification in grade and step — Application of the Court's case-law — Articles 5 and 31(2), the second paragraph of Article 32 and Articles 45 and 62 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Katalagarianakis v Commission
   (Case T-402/03) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Review of classification in grade and step - Application of the Court's case-law - Articles 5 and 31(2), the second paragraph of Article 32 and Articles 45 and 62 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 95/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Katalagarianakis (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision reviewing and fixing the applicant's classification at recruitment at Grade A6, first step, reviewing and fixing his subsequent classification at Grade A5, third step, on 1 April 2000 and fixing the starting point of its pecuniary effects at 5 October 1995.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 14 April 2003 in so far as it fixes the starting point of its pecuniary effects at 5 October 1995.

               2.

               Rules that the Commission is to undertake a comparative examination of the applicant's merits and those of the officials promoted to Grade A5 in each promotion year since 1 May 1993.

               3.

               Following that examination and if the Commission should be unable to award the applicant such promotion in grade as may appear justified, invites the parties to seek agreement as to appropriate compensation.

               4.

               Rules that the parties are to inform the Court within three months of the delivery of this judgment of the content of any agreement they may have reached, failing which, of their conclusions, with figures, as to the assessment of the loss sustained.

               5.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               6.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.


title: Opinion 2/00 of the Court of 6 December 2001 (Cartagena Protocol — Conclusion — Legal basis — Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC — Living modified organisms — Environmental protection — Common commercial policy)

text:
2.3.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 56/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
               OPINION 2/00 OF THE COURT                                Colomer, J. Mischo, A. Tizzano, L.A. Geelhoed and C. Stix-
                                                                        Hackl, Advocates General,gives the following Opinion:
                      of 6 December 2001
                                                                        Competence to conclude the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is shared
                                                                        between the European Community and its Member States.
(Cartagena Protocol — Conclusion — Legal basis —
Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC — Living
modified organisms — Environmental protection — Com-                    (1) JO C 355 of 9 December 2000.
                    mon commercial policy)
                          (2002/C 56/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice has received a request for an Opinion,
lodged at the Court Registry on 27 October 2000 (1) by
the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to                                          (Fifth Chamber)
Article 300(6) EC, on the following questions:
                                                                                13 December 2001
(1) Do Articles 133 and 174(4), in conjunction with the
      relevant provisions of Article 300 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        in Case C-235/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act conclud-
                                                                        the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
      ing, on behalf of the European Community, the Cartagena
                                                                        Bench Division)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v
      Biosafety Protocol?
                                                                                CSC Financial Services Ltd (1)
(2) If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, are
      the powers that the Member States retain in matters of            (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exempt
      environmental protection — and which might justify                transactions — Transactions in securities — Negotiation —
      their participation in the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol                         Provision of a ‘call centre’ service)
      — residual powers in relation to the preponderant
      competence held by the Community to enter into inter-                                      (2002/C 56/02)
      national commitments regarding the matters dealt with
      by the Protocol?
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, Presidents of
Chambers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                     In Case C-235/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                  EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, after hearing S. Alber,            Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
First Advocate General, F.G. Jacobs, P. Léger, D. Ruiz-Jarabo           pending before that court between Commissioners of Customs


title: Case T-414/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission
   (Case T-414/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.