title: Case T-863/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/48

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-863/16)
   (2017/C 038/64)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 4 October 2016 inasmuch as it maintains only the decision to recover the sum of EUR 320 026,23 from Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen;

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016;

               —

               annul Debit Note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the formal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into three parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which competence in respect of financial decisions concerning political parties and, therefore, Members of Parliament rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General or the Quaestors.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary-General, however, has not produced any proper authorisation from the President of the Bureau of the Parliament giving the Secretary-General the power to adopt and notify the decision of 29 January 2016 as regards settling financial issues concerning a Member of Parliament. Nor were the Quaestors competent to take the decision of 4 October 2016, where a ‘decision’ taken by an equally incompetent administrative authority, namely the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, had been brought before them.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament contains no statement of reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into eight parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which the Quaestors’ decision does not seek to establish the supposedly unwarranted nature of the sums paid. It follows that the decision is incomplete, in that it concerns only the recovery of those sums. At the present stage, no decision exists concerning a finding that the sums paid to the applicant were in fact unwarranted, and the Secretary-General’s measure should therefore be withdrawn, as should the decision ordering the recovery of the sums in dispute.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           Fourth part, regarding the burden of proof, inasmuch as it is not for the applicant to demonstrate that the assistant in question was in fact working for him and that the work carried out by that assistant was necessary and directly related to the exercise of the applicant’s parliamentary mandate.

                           —

                           Fifth part, according to which the contested measures undermine the political rights of local assistants.

                           —

                           Sixth part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a misuse of powers and abuse of process.

                           —

                           Seventh part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory. In addition, the sole purpose of the contested decisions is to damage the applicant’s political activity.

                           —

                           Eighth part, alleging that the applicant’s independence as a Member of the European Parliament has been undermined.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Primera, by order of that court of 3 July 1996 in the case of Soldred SA v. Administración General del Estado (Case C-347/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370/ 7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                               Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
                                                                               in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
According to the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                      require national provisions on equal treatment with
Treaty, a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be                   respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed.                     to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
It follows that each Member State is obliged to realize the                    requirements and limitations ( prohibition of retroactive
objective of the directive prior to the expiry of the time                    effect) of Community law ?
limit prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose it into
domestic law in such a way that its practical effect is
achieved in full . The Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to discharge that obligation to transpose the Directive
in full within the time-limit laid down in Article 34 ( 1 )
thereof ( 14 June 1994 ).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, by judgment of that court of
(M OJNoL 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    11 October 1996 in the case of Belgisch Interventie- en
                                                                                Restitutiebureau against Prolacto NV
                                                                                ( Case C-346/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 17 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 10 February 1995 in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                      Hannover v. Almut Sattler                          European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, of
                           ( Case C-345 /96                              11 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on
                             ( 96/C 370/ 16 )                            21 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau against Prolacto
                                                                         NV on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities . by an order of the Third Chamber
of the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour                 In the context of a tender for the supply of skimmed milk
Court of Lower Saxony) of 10 February 1995 , which was                   power as food aid on the basis of Commission Regulations
                                                                         ( EEC ) Nos 345/87 ( ] ) and 1358/87 ( 2 ) of 3 February 1987
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 1996, for a
                                                                         and 15 May 1987, respectively, and the associated
preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                         tendering securities lodged pursuant to Article 12 of
Hannover v. Almut Sattler on the following questions :
                                                                         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 ( 3 ) of 17 May
                                                                         1983 , may a legal person who subsequently failed to fulfil
1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of                       its obligations and did not effect delivery be also the subject
            application or validity ( under the second paragraph         of a claim for payment of compensation on the part
            of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC Treaty ) over         of the Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( Belgian
            national provisions of the Member States which               intervention and restitution agency ) pursuant to Article 25
            could or would be applicable, by way of                      ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 when all the tendering
            concurrence of claims, to the same factual situation         securities have been declared forfeit to that agency ?
            and with the same aim of supporting claims to
            equal treatment in occupational pension schemes,             (!) OJ No L 34 , 3 . 2 . 1987, p . 8 .
            as for example in Germany — generally — the                  ( 2 ) OJNoL 131 , 15 . 5 . 1987, p . 1 .
            employment law principle of equal treatment or —             ( 3 ) OJNoL 142 , 17. 5 . 1983 , p . 1 .
            specifically — paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschafti
            gungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment Promotion
            Law ) 1985 ?
      ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
            conflict, where Community law confers benefits               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
            under occupational pension schemes only if and in            Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso
            so far as they are attributable to periods of                Administrativo, Sección Primera, by order of that court of
            employment after 17 May 1990, whereas the                    3 July 1996 in the case of Soldred SA v. Administración
            national provisions regulate the same factual                                          General del Estado
            situation differently in that they do not exclude                                         Case C-347/96 )
            retroactive effect, apply generally ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 18 )
      (c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
            objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
            social objective, namely the creation of equal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/8            1 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            7 . 12 . 96
de Justicia de Madrid ( High Court of Justice, Madrid ),                      ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccion Primera                        against Alessandro Pozzoli and Donatella Calfa on the
( Division for Contentious Administrative Proceedings, First                  following questions:
Chamber), of 3 July 1996, which was received at the Court
Registry on 21 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Soldred SA v. Administracion General del Estado
( General State Administration ) on the following questions :                 1 . Is a provision of national law compatible with the
                                                                                provisions of Community law referred to in the grounds
                                                                                of this order and, in particular, with the provisions of
                                                                                Articles 8 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), 8a ( 1 ), 48 , 52 and 59 of the EC
1 . Properly construed, does Council Directive 69/335/EEC                         Treaty, the provisions of the relevant directives also
      of 17 July 1969 ( as subsequently amended by Directives                     referred to in the grounds hereof, or with other relevant
      73/79/EEC and 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 , 74/553/                           provisions of Community law concerning freedom of
      EEC of 7 November 1974 and 85/303/EEC of 10 June                            movement for persons and services, and with the
      1985 ), in particular Articles 4 ( 1 ) ( a ), 5 ( 1 ) ( a ), 5 ( 2 ), 7     Community law principle of equal treatment enshrined
      and 10 ( a ), mean that, if the legislation of a Member                     in Article 7 of the EC Treaty, where such provision of
      State provides for a tax on the formation of a public                       national law requires the national court, unless there
      limited liability company at the rate of 1% , calculable                    are good grounds, particularly of a family nature, for
      in all cases on the nominal value of the share capital,                     not doing so, to order the permanent exclusion of a
      even where that capital has not been paid up in full , a                    national of another Member State of the European
      tax of 0,5% may not then be levied on the contribution                       Community for reasons of public order and public
      of the part of the capital not previously paid up ?                         security, solely on the ground that the national of
                                                                                another Member State, whilst lawfully staying in the
                                                                                host state in order to receive tourist services, committed
                                                                                the offences of obtaining drugs for his own exclusive
                                                                                use and the use of drugs, and where such exclusion
2.    Is the limitation in Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC
                                                                                entails for the offender a legal bar on his returning to
      also applicable even though the second payment of tax                       the country — unless authorized after a three-year
      does not specifically relate to a capital contribution but                   period by the Minister of Justice in his discretion — in
      falls to be levied on the document recording that                            order to pursue the activities provided for by the
      contribution, where the recording thereof is a                               abovementioned provisions of Community law, and
      mandatory requirement under domestic company law                             where in the case of such an offence being committed
      and the rate of 0,5% specifically relates to the amount                      by a national of the host state the same punishment of
      of the contribution recorded in the document ?
                                                                                imprisonment is imposed, though not any other
                                                                                analogous penalty, such as a residence restriction ,
                                                                                which is imposed on a national of the host state only if
                                                                                a term of imprisonment for a more serious offence
 3 . Does the aforesaid Directive 69/335/EEC ( as amended )                        is imposed, such as for dealing, and is purely
      have direct effect, and does it affect, and possibly                         discretionary ?
      prevail over, the provisions of national law in the event
      that those provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner
      compatible with the Directive ?
                                                                              2 . Should exclusion by the host country under such a
                                                                                provision of national law ( as described in question 1
                                                                                above ) of the national of another Member State
                                                                                be deemed compatible with the abovementioned
                                                                                provisions of Community law where, in connection
                                                                                with exclusion, the court so ordering is left with no
                                                                                discretion, other than that relating to the important
                                                                                reasons, in particular of a family nature, in determining
                                                                                whether the offender's continued residence in the host
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areios Pagos                            country might be justified, is such a measure to be
 ( Greece ) by judgment of that court of 25 June 1996 in the                       regarded as infringing the Community principle of
 criminal proceedings pending before that court against                            proportionality, that is to say as being disproportionate
             Alessandro Pozzoli and Donatella Calfa
                                                                                to the seriousness of the offences ( described above in
                          ( Case C-348/96 )                                        question 1 ) committed by that person, regard being had
                                                                                to the fact that under national law those offences are
                            ( 96/C 370/ 19 )                                       tried at first instance and are punishable as stated in the
                                                                                grounds of this order, or to the fact that the exclusion
                                                                                ordered by the national court is permanent, subject to
                                                                                authorization by the Minister of Justice in his discretion
                                                                                for the offender to return after a three-year period to
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            the host country from which he was expelled ?
 European Communities by judgment of the Areios Pagos
  ( Supreme Court) ( Greece ) of 25 June 1996, received at the
 Court Registry on 21 October 1996 , for a preliminary


title: Action brought on 22 February 1995 by British Cement Association against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-54/95)

text:
No C 119/18           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
The Rugby Group pic, represented by Ms Lynda Martin                     Rugby was not given an opportunity to comment on the
Alegi and Mr Jacques Bourgeois with an address for service               Commission's legal case against it.
in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 , rue
Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.                                              The Commission did not give Rugby an opportunity to
                                                                        comment on crucial aspects of the Commission's
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            analysis of economic issues .
— annul Articles 1 , 2, 4, 8 and 9 of the Commission                    The separation of the national from the international
    Decision of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding               chapters of the Statement of Objections was improper
    under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and             and has impeded Rugby's defence .
    IV/33.322 — Cement) in so far as they pertain to The
    Rugby Group pic,                                                    The Commission failed adequately to individualise and
                                                                        identify the objections against Rugby in the Statement of
— subsidiarily, modify Article 9 of the Decision as it                  Objections and failed to establish in the Decision
    pertains to The Rugby Group pic so as to annul or                   Rugby's individual participation in the alleged
    substantially reduce the fine imposed on The Rugby                  violations .
    Group pic therein, and
                                                                        The Decision holds Rugby responsible so far as the fines
— an order that the Commission pay all of the costs
    incurred by The Rugby Group pic.                                    are concerned for matters concerning bilateral relations
                                                                        of which Rugby was not accused in the Statement of
                                                                        Objections .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Rugby was denied access to clearly exculpatory material
The grounds relied upon by Rugby in this appeal are :                   concerning the proposed Belgian/Dutch basing-point
                                                                        system .
1 . Infringement by the Commission ofArticle 85 of the EC
    Treaty and rules of law relating to its application
                                                                    4. Annulment or reduction of the fine
    The Commission improperly assessed the facts
    concerning Rugby's responsibility for the alleged                   As a subsidiary demand, Rugby requests that the fine
    Cembureau agreement and concerning the Two                          imposed on Rugby be annulled or substantially
    Shiploads:                                                          reduced .
    — by seeking to extend liability for indirect
        participation to 'Guilt by membership',
    — in concluding that the various alleged infringements
        constitute a 'single and continuous agreement',
        and
                                                                    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by British Cement
    — by failing properly to consider the duration of               Association against the Commission of the European
        Rugby's alleged individual participation.                                             Communities
                                                                                (Case T-54/95 )
2 . Inadequate reasoning of the Decision                                                     ( 95/C 119/40 )
3 . Infringement of essential procedural requirements                              (Language of the case: English)
    The Commission withheld from Rugby exculpatory
    documents .                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    The Commission relies in the Decision against Rugby on          Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
    a document, which was not made available to Rugby               1995 by British Cement Association, represented by
    during the administrative proceedings and which is              Mr Kenneth Parker, Mr Robert Tudway and Ms Dorcas
    incompletely quoted in the Decision.                            Rogers with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    chambers of Arendt & Medernach, Boîte Postale 39 ,
    The procedure was abandoned and closed as regards the           L-2010 Luxembourg.
    Two Shiploads by the Commission's letter of
    27 September 1993 and the Commission is therefore not
    entitled to base its Decision on that incident .                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    The allegations in the Statement of Objections were not         — annul the Commission's Decision of 30 November 1994
    sufficiently precise to cover Rugby's alleged involvement           in so far at it relates to the Applicant, and
    with the Two Shiploads and did not give Rugby an
    adequate opportunity to defend itself in this respect.          — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
 ---pagebreak---  13 . 5 . 95         LJN.                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/ 19
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         Freedoms. In the view of the applicant, the procedure
                                                                            followed by the Commission in competition law is one
The applicant contends that the findings against the                        which may lead to the imposition of sanctions and, as
applicant of infringements of Article 85 are erroneous, being               such, should have the procedural guarantees which are
based on a materially incorrect appreciation of the facts and               characteristic of criminal proceedings, as is recognized
vitiated by manifest error of assessment.                                   in Member States where the administrative law
                                                                            provides for the imposition of penalties . None the less,
Further, or in the alternative, the applicant contends that                 in Community law the Commission is the body which
the Commissioin failed to observe essential procedural                      both investigates and makes decisions, with the power
requirements in that:                                                       to impose coercive sanctions on undertakings which
— the reasoning to support the findings of infringement                     are the subject of proceedings . Therefore the procedure
     against the applicant is inadequate, and/or                            lacks objectivity, contrary to Article 6 of the
                                                                            abovementioned Convention .
— the applicant was deprived of a proper opportunity to be
     heard in so far as certain findings of infringement in the         II. Infringement of rights of the defence. The applicant
     Decision were not set out in the Statement of Objections               maintains that its rights were infringed in the course of
      served on the applicant in the administrative                         the administrative procedure inasmuch as:
     proceedings.
                                                                            1 , it was not given access to the full file;
                                                                            2, the objections raised against the applicant were not
                                                                                sufficiently specified;
Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Asland SA against
        the Commission of the European Communities                          3 , the Decision contains new objections which are
                          Case T-55/95 )                                        different to those raised against the applicant in the
                                                                                Statement of Objections .
                           ( 95/C 119/41 )
                                                                       III. Insufficient statement of reasons. The applicant states
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                             that the Commission has failed to set out clearly and
                                                                            coherently the considerations of fact and law on which
An action against the Commission of the European                            it has based its Decision, so that neither the applicant
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           nor the Court of First Instance is in a position to be
Instance of the European Communities on 22 February                         cognizant of the elements of its reasoning.
1995 by Asland SA, whose registered office is Barcelona
( Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the                IV. Misapplication of Article 85 ( 1 ) to the applicant's
Barcelona Bar, Antonio Hierro Hernandez Mora , of the                       conduct.
Madrid Bar, and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the Barcelona Bar,
with an address for service in Brussels at 78 Avenue
                                                                            1 . First, the applicant considers that, in so far as it is
d'Auderghem.                                                                    concerned, the Commission has not determined
                                                                                the facts correctly, since it is alleged to have
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     participated in the ' Cembureau Agreement' solely
                                                                                on the basis of its proven attendance at a meeting
— annul in whole or in part Commission Decision ( 94 )
     3077 final of 30 November 1994,                                            prior to that setting up the 'European Task Force '
                                                                                and on the unfounded assumption that it also
— in the alternative, in the event that the Decision is upheld                  participated in the subsequent meeting of that
     in whole or in part, cancel the fine imposed on Asland SA                  group .
     in Article 9,
                                                                            2 . Secondly, the applicant states that, in so far as it is
— in the further alternative, in the event that the Decision is                 concerned, all the legal assessments of the
     upheld in whole or in part, substantially reduce the fine                  Commission of the unproven facts are unfounded,
     imposed on Asland SA in Article 9,                                         since it has not been proven that, by attending the
                                                                                meeting in Rome in May 1986 the applicant had
— order the Commission to pay to Asland SA the whole of                         infringed Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty.
     the costs of the proceedings, including the costs (with
     interest) of the security lodged for payment of the whole          V. In the alternative, in so far as concerns the fine, the
     or part of the fine .                                                  applicant pleads:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         1 , inadequacy of the reasons given for the fine;
The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
its application:                                                            2 , misapplication of Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation
                                                                                No 17/62 to the conduct of the applicant;
  I. Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
       for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                   3 , breach of the principle of equal treatment;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2003 in Case T-237/01: Alcon Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — "BSS" — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 112/31
lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                   2.     dismisses the remainder of the application;
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego
and J. F. Crespo Carrillo): Action against the decision of the               3.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2001
(Case R-1086/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 331.
Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President,
J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March
2003, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
                                                                             in Case T-237/01: Alcon Inc v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — ‘BSS’
                                                                             — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute
                                                                             ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/
                        of 26 February 2003                                  94 — Distinctive character acquired through use —
                                                                                Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
in Case T-212/01: Arnaldo Lucacioni v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/61)
(Officials — Insurance Against the Risk of Accident and
of Occupational Disease — Aggravation of injuries —                                              (Language of the case: English)
Overlapping of capital and compensation provided by
     Articles 12 and 14 respectively of the Insurance Rules)
                           (2003/C 112/60)                                   In Case T-237/01, Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal
                                                                             Ltd, established in Hünenberg (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                             H. Porter, Solicitor and C. Morcom QC, with an address for
                     (Language of the case: French)                          service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                             Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent:
                                                                             S. Laitinen), the intervener before the Court of First Instance
                                                                             being Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH, established in
In Case T-212/01: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, former official of the                 Olching (Germany), represented by S.N. Schneller, lawyer:
Commission of the European Communities, residing in St-                      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom), represented by J. R. Iturria-               Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
gagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Commission of the European                  (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2001 (Case R
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) - application             273/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 16 Nov-                   composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
ember 2000 suspending the procedure to examine a request                     A.W.H. Meij, Judges: J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Regis-
to recognise an aggravation of his occupational illness and                  trar, has given a judgment on 5 March 2003, in which it:
refusal to take action on that request and a claim for damages -
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
B. Vesterdorf, President, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                1.     Dismisses the application;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission, notified to the applicant
       by letter of 16 November 2000, to suspend the procedure               (1 ) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
       provided for by Article 22 of the Insurance Rules and not to act
       on the applicant’s request seeking the recognition of the
       aggravation of his occupational illness;


title: Case T-301/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/20

         Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-301/12)
   2012/C 250/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3).

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

      (3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)


title: Case C-81/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava
   (Case C-81/17)
   (2017/C 161/11)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Zabrus Siret SRL

      Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) together with the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an administrative practice and/or an interpretation of the provisions of national legislation precluding the assessment and recognition of the right to reimbursement of VAT resulting from adjustments in respect of transactions carried out during a period, preceding the most recent inspection period, which has already been the subject of a tax inspection and in which the tax authorities did not find any anomalies that were such as to alter the taxable amount for VAT, notwithstanding the fact that those provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may review a period which has previously been the subject of a tax inspection in the light of additional data and information obtained subsequently as a result of cooperation between State authorities and institutions?

               2.

               Must Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national rules of a legislative nature which deny the possibility of correcting substantive errors in VAT returns for tax periods which have already been the subject of a tax inspection, the only exception being where the correction is made on the basis of a notice communicated by the tax inspectorate at the time of the previous inspection?

      (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 C-455/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30.05.2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/15

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30.05.2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission
   (Case C-455/13 P)
   2013/C 325/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop) (represented by: M. Merola, M.C. Santacroce, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               declare the action of the F&V industrial processors inadmissible, and therefore grant the forms of order sought by the Appellants at first instance;

               —

               alternatively, should the Court decide that the actions for annulment are admissible (quod non), revoke the judgment under appeal for serious and manifest errors in law, as well as for insufficient and contradictory legal reasoning, as explained in the appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for the examination of the merits of the case;

               —

               alternatively, should the Court decide to confirm (quod non) the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the case, revoke the part of the judgment concerning the effects of the annulment of Article of Article. 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 (1) because it is based on a contradictory reasoning, which also conflicts with the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, given the duration and functioning of operational programmes;

               —

               order the applicants in first instance to bear the costs of both instances of the proceeding or reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal if the case is referred back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court:

               —

               incorrectly assessed the admissibility of the action in case T-454/l0 insofar as it refers to Annex VIII to Regulation No. 1580/2007 (2), in particular by considering that Annex VIII formed a whole with Article 52(2)a, second subparagraph of the above-mentioned Regulation and not realizing that the latter provision has brought no change to the content of Annex VIII, which has always been admitting to EU funding actions and investments on certain processing activities;

               —

               incorrectly assessed the first instance applicants’ standing to bring the actions for annulment under Article 263(4) and (6) TFEU;

               —

               erroneously ruled that the contested provisions were adopted in breach of the Single CMO Regulation, by wrongly assuming that this Regulation excluded from the scope of European funding all activities carried out by producer organisations other than the production of fresh products (either for consumption or intended for processing);

               —

               incorrectly applied the principle of non-discrimination, by confusing it with the principle of undistorted competition between equal market players and forgetting that the agricultural sector is subject to its own rules within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy;

               —

               as far as the effects of the annulment are concerned, misapplied Article 264(2) TFEU by drawing a distinction between Article 52(2)a — second subparagraph — of former Regulation No. 1580/2007 and Article 50(3) of Regulation No. 543/2011, on the one hand, and Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 on the other, and by delivering a judgment that is impossible to execute with reference to Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011.

      (1)  543/2011/EU: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors
   OJ L 157, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector
   OJ L 350, p. 1


title: Case F-119/12: Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/36

         Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-119/12)
   2012/C 379/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 June 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the defendant on 3 April 2012 by which it informed the applicant that her fixed-term contract expiring on 31 May 2012 would not be renewed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between (i) the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and (ii) the amount of remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 June 2012 by way of replacement for the remuneration she was receiving as a temporary agent;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2000 in Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA) and Others v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Application signed by a lawyer not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area Agreement — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 122/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                                                                        in Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA) and
                                                                                Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Application signed by a lawyer
                                                                        not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State
                                                                        or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area
                                                                                Agreement — Inadmissibility)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 122/50)
                      of 9 February 2000
in Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v                                       (Language of the case: English)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        In Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA), established
(Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objec-             in Brussels, Hypermarché Auchan S.A., established in Croix
tion of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)            (France), Karstadt Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Ger-
                                                                        many), Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, established in Cologne (Ger-
                                                                        many), Société Anonyme CIVAD, trading as La Blanche Porte,
                        (2000/C 122/49)                                 established in Tourcoing (France), OttoVersand GmbH & Co.,
                                                                        established in Hamburg (Germany), Quelle-Schickedanz AG
                                                                        & Co., established in Fürth (Germany), Textilimportörerna,
                                                                        established in Stockholm (Sweden) (Agent: U. Schliessner,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
                                                                        Rue Mathias Hardt) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
In Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, an official        S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch) supported by
of the Commission of the European Communities, represented              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
by Vı́ctor Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, of the Malaga Bar (Spain),       schitz and N. Khan) — application for the annulment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997
Consuelo Pérez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de Brabant, v                   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                   cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
Currall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                (OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second
decision of 30 July 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for a        Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi, A. Po-
review of his initial classification and of the Commission’s            tocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
decision of 3 February 1997 rejecting the applicant’s com-              has given an order on 24 February 2000, in which it:
plaint against that decision — the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
an order on 9 February 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                        2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
                                                                            severally, to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                        3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                              (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2002 in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 233/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.9.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 29 May 2002 by the European Parlia-
                                                                            ment against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun
                           (First Chamber)                                                         Alliance Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-199/02)
                           of 14 June 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 233/19)
in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke
GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (1)                        An action against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun Alliance
                                                                            Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a                  European Communities on 29 May 2002 by the European
preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and                      Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim and O. Caisou-
annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies —                    Rousseau, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                 Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                         Luxembourg.
                                                                            The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 233/18)
                                                                            1.    order the defendants to reimburse the European Parlia-
                                                                                ment the costs of repairing the storm damage caused to
                    (Language of the case: German)                                its Alucobond panels on 26 December 1999, amounting
                                                                                to EUR 1 194 378,43 together with interest on account
                                                                                of late payment;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          2.    order Chubb to reimburse the European Parliament
                                                                                expert’s fees amounting to EUR 2 200,64 together with
                                                                                interest on account of late payment;
                                                                            3.    order the defendants to pay the costs.
In Case C-248/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch)
(Austria), for a preliminary ruling in proceedings before that              Pleas in law and main arguments
Landesgericht brought by Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH
and Others and Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others on the
validity and interpretation of the First Council Directive 68/              The action is brought on the basis of an arbitration clause.
151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards                      The applicant takes the view that the defendant insurance
which, for the protection of the interests of members and                   companies are not entitled to rely upon an exclusion clause
others, are required by Member States of companies within the               set out under the heading ‘storms and hailstorms’ in the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,                supplementary general conditions of the contract of insurance.
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual
accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
made an order on 14 June 2002, in which it ruled:                           court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds
                                                                            Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide
                                                                            Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Cus-
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no                                    toms and Excise
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Feldkirch
in its order of 22 June 2001.                                                                       (Case C-255/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/20)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties


title: Case C-150/03 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Chantal Hectors against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chantal Hectors and European Parliament

text:
C 112/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Chantal Hectors                         —    The Court of First Instance infringed the general obli-
against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003 by the                       gation to state the grounds on which decisions are based.
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chan-                            The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
             tal Hectors and European Parliament                               considers that the decision of the authority empowered
                                                                               to conclude contracts of employment not to appoint the
                                                                               applicant provides an adequate statement of reasons by
                          (Case C-150/03 P)                                    stating that the relevant internal rules according to which
                                                                               the chairman of the political group concerned had to
                                                                               choose one of the first three candidates on the list of
                           (2003/C 112/38)                                     suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board.
                                                                          —    The Court of First Instance infringed Article 12 of the
                                                                               Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003                    European Communities.
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     The judgment of the Court of First Instance is wrong in
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chantal                          not finding that there was a manifest error of assessment
Hectors and European Parliament was brought before the                         in that it was not established that an assessment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 April 2003                   candidates’ qualifications had taken place.
by Chantal Hectors, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    —    The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of
                                                                               equal treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
                                                                               considers that the applicant has not established a pre-
                                                                               sumption of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               that the applicant was 6 months pregnant at the time of
      the European Communities of 23 January 2003 in Case
                                                                               the recruitment procedure.
      T-181/01 and
—     accordingly, uphold the applicant’s claims at first instance
      and, thus,
      —     annul the decision taken, on a date unknown, by
            the authority empowered to conclude contracts of              Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Karl L. Meyer against
            employment appointing Mr A. B. to the post of                 the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the Third Chamber
            administrator in the PPE-DE Group of the European             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
            Parliament and the decision, of unknown date,                        ties in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission
            rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that post
            and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                (Case C-151/03 P)
            rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on 28 May
            2001;
                                                                                (2003/C 112/39)
      —     order the defendant to pay damages assessed at
            EUR 60 554,7, subject to increment;
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the
      —     order the defendant to pay the entire costs incurred          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
            at first instance and on appeal.                              Communities in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission.
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 2 April 2003 (lodged by fax on 23 March
                                                                          2003) by Karl L. Meyer, represented by Jean-Dominique des
                                                                          Arcis.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’ and the principle of
      legality.                                                           —    set aside paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment of
                                                                               the Court of First Instance;
      The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
      considers that the authority empowered to conclude                  —    amend and correct accordingly paragraphs 41 to 47 of
      contracts of employment has unfettered discretion to                     the judgment;
      organise interviews with the candidates when neither the
      internal rules on the recruitment of members of the                 —    order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
      temporary staff nor the vacancy notice provide for them.                 instance and on appeal.


title: Case C-262/02: Action brought on 16 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 202/18                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.8.2002
Action brought on 16 July 2002 by the Commission of                      The measures taken by the CSA give rise to several ‘restrictive
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    effects’ on the freedom to provide services. First, the French
                                                                         broadcasting services are not authorised to accept advertise-
                           (Case C-262/02)                               ments for alcoholic beverages or to broadcast programmes,
                                                                         such as sporting events, which are likely to entail publicity for
                           (2002/C 202/26)                               such products, whatever their origin. Those effects extend to
                                                                         retransmissions and in that way also affect operators located
                                                                         in another Member State. This applies, inter alia, to foreign
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             organisers of sporting events taking place outside France, who
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July                  are prevented from selling retransmission rights to French
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      broadcasting services (or their agents) when those broadcasts
represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, with an address             are likely to entail publicity for alcoholic products. Second, it
for service in Luxembourg.                                               affects the holders of licences for the advertising hoardings
                                                                         installed around stadiums, since they are unable to sell
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   advertising space to French or even non-French advertisers
the Court should:                                                        without running the risk that the advertising might have to be
1.    Declare that, by making the televised broadcasting in              withdrawn from the stadium to enable the match to be
      France by French television channels of sporting events            broadcast by a French station. Lastly, the situation complained
      taking place in the territory of other Member States               of could also lead to restrictions on the sponsorship activities
      conditional upon the prior withdrawal of publicity pro-            provided to sports clubs by the producers of alcoholic
      moting alcoholic beverages, the French Republic has                beverages.
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 (ex 59) of
      the EC Treaty;
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         The measures in question are inadequate in that they apply in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the absence of proof of evasion of the law by advertisers of
                                                                         alcoholic beverages and in that, in any event, they are
The measures taken by the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel             disproportionate owing to their arbitrary nature. The Com-
(Higher Council for the Audiovisual Sector, hereinafter ‘the             mission considers that the system introduced by the French
CSA’) in accordance with the Law of 10 January 1991 limiting             authorities to combat or prevent cases of evasion of the Loi
publicity promoting alcoholic beverages (‘Loi Evin’), which              Evin lacks precision and does not enable operators to know
according to the CSA’s interpretation, as formalised in a Code           with sufficient certainty the extent of their rights. It is
of Good Conduct, is to apply to the televised broadcasting in            accordingly disproportionate. In particular, the dividing line
French territory, by French television channels, of sporting             between different types of events (multinational events, to
events taking place in the territory of other Member States,             which the Loi Evin would never be applied, and binational
when publicity promoting alcoholic beverages appears on the              events, to which the Loi Evin would be applied, unless there
sports grounds concerned, constitute an infringement of                  was proof that the law was not being evaded) is not clearly
Article 49 EC.                                                           established in the Code of Good Conduct.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 8 January 2002 in Case C-428/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven): H. van den Bor BV v Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Powers of the Member States — Compensation for farmers following the slaughter of United Kingdom calves ordered during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in March 1996)

text:
C 84/12                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             6.4.2002
1.    Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the         market in Belgium, France and the Netherlands (OJ 1996 L 99,
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to            p. 16), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 841/96
      comply with the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Council              of 7 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 114, p. 18),the Court (Fifth
      Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the                Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
      transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal             D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and
      products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of              M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar:
      national health insurance systems, the Republic of Austria has          H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;                    8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             1.   The Community provisions applicable to the common agricul-
                                                                                tural policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that, in response to information concerning a possible
                                                                                link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutz-
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                feldt-Jakob disease in humans and to the bovine spongiform
                                                                                encephalopathy crisis in the United Kingdom, the Member
                                                                                States were entitled, under Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and
                                                                                zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in
                                                                                certain live animals and products with a view to the completion
                                                                                of the internal market, as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            health and public health requirements governing trade in and
                                                                                imports into the Community of products not subject to the said
                                                                                requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                       in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards
                                                                                pathogens, to Directive 90/425:
                             8 January 2002
                                                                                —      to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating
in Case C-428/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 from the United Kingdom present in their territory and,
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): H. van den
Bor BV v Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (1)
                                                                                —      since there could be serious grounds for believing that, in
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalo-                                     the absence of fair compensation, farmers might conceal
pathy — Powers of the Member States — Compensation for                                    the origin of animals in their possession in order to avoid
farmers following the slaughter of United Kingdom calves                                  their slaughter and the resulting financial loss, to adopt a
ordered during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis                                compensation measure ancillary to the measure requiring
                             in March 1996)                                               slaughter of the animals.
                              (2002/C 84/20)
                                                                              2.   Even though the Member States had the power to adopt
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                compensation measures under Article 8(1)(a) of Directive
                                                                                90/425, as amended by Directive 92/118, Community law,
                                                                                in particular Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/96 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the
                     in the European Court Reports)                                beef and veal market in Belgium, France and the Netherlands,
                                                                                as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 841/96 of
                                                                                7 May 1996, precluded the amount of compensation to farmers
                                                                                from being determined by national provisions from the date
In Case C-428/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                         upon which that regulation became applicable.
EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between H. van den Bor BV and Voedsel-
voorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau on the power of the
Member States to compensate cattle farmers and determine                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
the amount of compensation due following the slaughter of
United Kingdom calves ordered during the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy crisis in March 1996 and on the interpretation
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/96 of 19 April 1996
adopting exceptional support measures for the beef and veal


title: Case T-433/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Bank Saderat v Conseil

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/40

         Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Bank Saderat v Conseil
   (Case T-433/15)
   (2015/C 320/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and M-E. Demetriou and R. Blakeley, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               condemn the Council to pay the following sums to the applicant:

                           —

                           € 8 8 9 06  191 in respect of material damage up until the date of this claim;

                           —

                           € 8 7 13  285 in respect of interest on the sum in sub-paragraph (1) above plus daily interest of € 10  377 until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit;

                           —

                           a daily rate of € 54  716 in respect of material damage from the date of this claim until the end of the Claim Period;

                           —

                           interest on the total sum calculated pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit;

                           —

                           € 3 2 9 64  320 in respect of material damage from the date of the end of the Claim Period;

                           —

                           € 1 0 00  000 in respect of non-material damage;

                           —

                           post-judgment interest on the sums in sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of payment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of payment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; and

                           —

                           the Bank’s costs of this application;

               —

               condemn the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the applicant and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged.
   According to the applicant, this breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.


title: Case T-561/13: Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Spain v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/37

         Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-561/13)
   2013/C 367/67
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul in part the contested decision to the extent that it excludes the expenditure, amounting to EUR 757 968,97, incurred by Kingdom of Spain in the context of the ICDN (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps; CANH) aid of Galicia’s 2007-2013 Rural Development programme in respect of ‘natural handicaps’, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(2) and (4) of Regulation No 1975/2006.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the CANH aid breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and that the Commission wrongly interpreted the abovementioned provisions by finding that the Spanish system was not suitable for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1082/2003 and of Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation No 796/2004.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the abovementioned provisions in that it imposes the obligation to carry out a count of animals during an on-the-spot check in order to verify the livestock density criterion.


title: Case T-285/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/37

         Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-285/17)
   (2017/C 231/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 34) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 1) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the contested acts.

                           —

                           The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the contested decision.

                           —

                           The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU.

                           —

                           There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers.

                           —

                           The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the contested acts was essentially to try to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine (so that Ukraine proceeds with closer ties with the EU), and not the purposes/rationales stated on the face of the contested acts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons.

                           —

                           The ‘statement of reasons’ adopted in the contested acts for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and inadequately particularised.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.


title: Case C-152/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL
   (Case C-152/15)
   (2015/C 205/23)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

      Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

      Question referred

   The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa asks the ECJ:

               —

               whether a bank guarantee, provided in order to obtain an advance on export refunds, may not be enforced where it is only during inspections carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the goods at issue that it is established that ‘other conditions’ have not yet been satisfied;

               —

               or whether, on the contrary, such a guarantee may be enforced where the ‘other conditions’ are not satisfied, even if that fact is established only after customs clearance.


title: Case T-777/14: Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — Henniger (NEOFON — FON ET AL.)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/41

         Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — Henniger (NEOFON — FON ET AL.)
   (Case T-777/14)
   (2015/C 026/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Henniger (Starnberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Neofon’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 74  893

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2014 in Case R 2519/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and consequently, take necessary steps to ensure the effectiveness of the decision of the Court;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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