title: Case T-42/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Lurgi AG and Lurgi S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 83/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      The referral covers the entire content of the SPC. This
                                                                                goes beyond the permissible scope of an Article 30
                                                                                referral, which must be limited to a ‘clearly identified
—     annul the Contested Decision                                               question’, according to Article 30, second indent, of the
                                                                                Directive.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs                   —      It has not been demonstrated that the contested Decision
                                                                                is based on public health grounds.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 311, of 28.11.2001, p. 67.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicants in the present case are all Marketing Authoris-
ation Holders (MAH) for the product ZOCORD, which,
containing the active ingredient simvastatin, is a lipid-lowering         Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Lurgi AG and
medicine reducing levels of toal cholesterol, LDL-C (low                  Lurgi S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
density lipoprotein cholesterol), Apo B (Apolipoprotein B) and                                       Communities
triglycerides in the blood It also increases the amount of HDL-
C (High density lipoprotein cholesterol) in the blood.                                              (Case T-42/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/56)
They challenge the decision of the European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products to initiate a referral procedure                             (Language of the case: English)
under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council, of 6 November 2001, of the
Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use (the Directive) ( 1), in relation to the aforementioned               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
product.                                                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Lurgi AG,
                                                                          Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and Lurgi S.p.A., Milan, Italy,
                                                                          represented by Dr Michael Schütte and Prof Massimo Benedet-
The Applicants sumit that the contested Decision violates                 teli, Lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Article 30 of the Directive on the following grounds:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     There are no divergent decisions following decisions in
      accordance with Article 8, 10(1) and 11 of the Directive.           —      annul the notice terminating the THERMIE Contract,
                                                                                notified by the Commission’s letter of 26 November
                                                                                2002;
—     The contested Decision is a decision to harmonise the
      summary of product characteristics (SPC) for ZOCORD                 —      declare that the Commission is not entitled to claim
      and associated trade names, and the single proposal of                     reimbursement of the funds paid to the contractors under
      the referral procedure for ZOCORD is to develop and                        the THERMIE contract BM/1007/94;
      impose the EU-wide harmonised SPC. The Article 30
      procedure, however, does not allow for the adoption of a            —      order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-
      harmonised SPC.                                                            ings.
—     Before the mutual recognition procedure took effect,
      pharmaceutical companies were under no obligation to                Pleas in law and main arguments
      submit identical marketing authorisation applications to
      different Member States. Applicants could, for example,
      request approval of different therapeutic uses or presen-           The applicants, together with several other contractors, con-
      tations, often to take account of differences in national           cluded a contract (THERMIE contract) on 12 December 1994
      medical practices and customs. Such differences in appli-           with the Commission for activities relating to the promotion
      cations unavoidably result in differences in the approvals,         of energy technology in Europe. The contract was concluded
      but do not qualify as ‘divergent decisions’ for the purposes        under number BM 1007/1994 IT/DE/UK and its object was
      of Article 30. Hence, differences between national                  the funding and implementation of the project ‘Energy farm:
      approvals resulting from different applications are not             an IGCC plant for the production of electricity and heat trough
      covered by Article 30.                                              gasification of SFR biomass’
 ---pagebreak--- 5.4.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 83/27
On 30 May 1997 a contract was concluded between one of                   Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.
the applicants, Lurgi SpA, and the coordinator of the project,                against Commission of the European Communities
Bioelettrica, relating to the construction of a plant for the
atmospheric gasification of biomass. During the engineering
works, the applicant identified certain technical difficulties.                                    (Case T-46/03)
These difficulties were brought to the attention of the Com-
mission and the other contractors.                                                                 (2003/C 83/57)
On 6 September 2001, the Commission notified Bioelettrica                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
that it was terminating the contract because of the failure to
commence the works under the THERMIE contract. Bioelettrica
contested this termination of the contract before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-287/01, Bioelettrica/Commission.                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.,
On 23 July 2002, the Commission sent a further notice                    represented by Giovanni Vezzoli and Gianluca Belotti, lawyers.
indicating that it would terminate the contract due to non-
performance by the contractors unless they performed their
obligations within 30 days. The Commission mainly criticised             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the delays of the project. In a letter dated 26 November
2002, the Commission stated that it considered the contract
terminated. This termination of the contract is being contested          —     principally, annul the contested decision;
in the present case.
                                                                         —     or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed,
In support of their application, the applicants invoke an                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
infringement of the formal requirements in the decision
making procedure of the Commission. According to the
applicants, all acts of the Commission have to be taken under
the principle of collegiality as set forth in Article 219 of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
EC Treaty and Article 1 of the procedural rules of the
Commission ( 1). The applicants submit that the decision termi-
nating the contract had a substantial financial impact for               This action is directed against the same decision as that
the contractors and involves a difficult technical and legal
                                                                         contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas
assessment of the contract and its purpose. Therefore, the
                                                                         in law and main arguments are similar to those in the
applicants claim that the decision to terminate the contract             abovementioned case.
could not be considered as an execution of an act at an
administrative or management level and that the decision had
to be taken by the College of Commissioners.
Furthermore, the applicants invoke the wrongful application
of the THERMIE contract. The applicants submit in this respect
that there is no justification for a termination of the contract
for non-performance by the contractors. According to the                         Removal from the register of Case T-187/94 (1)
applicants, this provision is not applicable when there are
reasonable technical or economic grounds for non-perform-
ance. In the present case, there was a need to make modifi-                                        (2003/C 83/58)
cations to the original technology causing serious economic
risks.                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Finally, the applicants submit that the behaviour of the
Commission prevents the Commission from invoking non-
performance as a ground for termination of the contract. In              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the First
this respect, the applicants invoke Article 1460 of the Italian          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Civil Code and the principle inadimplenti non est adim-                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
plentum.                                                                 T-187/94: Theresia Rudolf v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) Rules of Procedure of the Commission [C(2000) 3614] (OJ L 308
     of 8 December 2000, p. 26).                                         (1 ) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.


title: Case F-130/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — CI v Parliament (Civil Service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Double dependent child allowance — Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations — Conditions for grant — Amicable settlement between the parties after the intervention of the European Ombudsman — Implementation — Duty of care)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/66

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — CI v Parliament
   (Case F-130/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Double dependent child allowance - Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations - Conditions for grant - Amicable settlement between the parties after the intervention of the European Ombudsman - Implementation - Duty of care))
   2014/C 223/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CI (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Despotopoulou and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision refusing to grant the double dependant child allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 5 December 2011 refusing to renew, with effect from 1 June 2008, the double dependent child allowance, and the decision of 20 July 2012 rejecting the claim;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CI.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 29.


title: Case F-43/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — Spee v Europol (Staff case — Europol staff — Vacant post — Selection procedure)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — Spee v Europol
   (Case F-43/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Europol staff - Vacant post - Selection procedure)
   2009/C 193/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer, initially, and I. Blekman, lawyer, subsequently)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury, B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Europol’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment in respect of which the applicant had submitted an application and subsequently to republish it, along with an claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Spee to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 33.


title: Case C-186/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol — Standstill clause — Freedom of establishment — Refusal of the application for further leave to remain from a Turkish national who had established a business in breach of the conditions of his leave to remain — Abuse of rights)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-186/10) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol - Standstill clause - Freedom of establishment - Refusal of the application for further leave to remain from a Turkish national who had established a business in breach of the conditions of his leave to remain - Abuse of rights)
   2011/C 269/22
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tural Oguz

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      In the presence of: Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Financial Protocol signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and on measures to be taken for their entry into force (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17) — Standstill rule — Scope — Prohibition on Member States from introducing new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Turkish national who established a business in the United Kingdom after obtaining leave to remain subject to a condition that he should not engage in any business or profession without the consent of the Secretary of State — Refusal to grant further leave to remain on the ground of breach of the conditions of his previous leave to remain

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a Turkish national who, having leave to remain in a Member State on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, nevertheless enters into self-employment in breach of that condition and later applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has meanwhile established.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Assumption of duties by new Judges of the Court of Justice

text:
4.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by new Judges of the Court of                      Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on
                              Justice                                                         10 October 2000
                        (2000/C 316/01)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/03)
Following their appointment as Judges of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities by decision of the
                                                                        The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
representatives of the Governments of the Member States of
                                                                        the following decisions at its meeting on 10 October 2000:
the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the period
from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr von Bahr, Mr da
Cunha Rodrigues and Mr Timmermans took their oaths before
the Court on 6 October 2000.
                                                                        Assignment of Judges von Bahr, da Cunha Rodrigues and
Following their appointment as Advocates General of the                 Timmermans
Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of
the representatives of the Governments of the Member States
of the European Communities of 26 July 2000 (1), for the                The Court decided to assign Judges von Bahr and Timmermans
period from 7 October 2000 to 6 October 2006, Mr Tizzano,               to the Fourth and Fifth Chambers and Judge da Cunha
Mr Geelhoed and Ms Stix-Hackl took their oaths before the               Rodrigues to the Third and Sixth Chambers.
Court on 6 October 2000.
(1) OJ L 199 of 5.8.2000, p. 81.
                                                                        Appointment of Presidents of Chambers
                                                                        In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                        Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
                                                                        7 October 2000:
      Election of the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        —    Judge Wathelet as President of the First Chamber,
                        (2000/C 316/02)
                                                                        —    Judge Skouris as President of the Second Chamber,
At their meeting on 10 October 2000, the Judges of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities elected Judge
Rodrı́guez Iglesias as President of the Court of Justice pursuant       —    Judge Gulmann as President of the Third and Sixth
to Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from               Chambers,
7 October 2000 to 6 October 2003.
                                                                        —    Judge La Pergola as President of the Fourth and Fifth
                                                                             Chamber.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 January 2015 in Case E-12/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/125/EC on ecodesign requirements for energy-related products — Failure to implement)

text:
               18.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 January 2015
   in Case E-12/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/125/EC on ecodesign requirements for energy-related products — Failure to implement)
   (2015/C 201/06)
   In Case E-12/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 67/2011 of 1 July 2011, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 67/2011 of 1 July 2011, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-595/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/26

         Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-595/14)
   (2015/C 138/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1);

               —

               maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the European Parliament relies on two pleas in law.
   The first plea concerns the Council’s use of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, alternatively, a secondary legal basis which, in itself, is unlawful in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice.
   The second plea concerns the Council’s use of a decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/688/EU which is not legally correct. The Parliament was not involved in the procedure which led to adoption of the contested decision. The Parliament infers from this, consequently, infringement of the Treaties and of an essential procedural requirement.
   Should the Court annul the contested decision, Parliament considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264(2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 287, p. 22.


title: Case C-311/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma by order of 1 July 1999 in the criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino

text:
C 333/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.11.1999
1.     where elements of the Directive were taken over when it          3.     Is it permitted or required to ascertain the country risk
was transposed into the national commercial accounting law              on the basis of one’s own connections, experience and
applicable to all traders (in this case Paragraph 238 et seq. of        information, or of knowledge in the sector or by using rating
the HGB), even though for them the ‘true and fair view’                 tables, or by a combination of those methods, or by a different
requirement set out in the preamble to and Article 2 of the             estimation?
Directive was not adopted in the wording of the legislation
(unlike in the case of capital companies, Paragraphs 264(2)             4.     May a risk be taken into account even if
and 289(1) of the HGB);
                                                                        (a) it already existed when the basic transaction was entered
2.     where national tax law (in this case the first sentence               into, and
of Paragraph 5(1) of the German Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                        (b) it is many times greater than the profit or earnings to be
(Income Tax Law, ‘the EStG’) in conjunction with Para-
                                                                             made from it (in this case, a guarantee fee for a period of
graph 8(1) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Corpor-
                                                                             less than one year)?
ation Tax Law, ‘the KStG’) and Paragraph 7 of the German
Gewerbesteuergesetz (Trace Tax Law, ‘the GewStG’) assumes
that the commercial law principles of proper accounting are             5.     Are the country risk and the creditworthiness risk to be
applicable for ascertaining the profits of traders who draw up          taken into account, if necessary, alongside each other for the
balance sheets, and                                                     same loan by means of a value adjustment or a provision,
                                                                        whether as a single amount or as separate amounts?
(a) where these are regulated in the provisions for all traders
     (Paragraph 238 et seq. of the HGB) harmonised (by the              6.     Is a combination of provisions for risk also permissible
     Directive) or                                                      if one risk is ascertained individually and the other risk
                                                                        globally?
(b) where the specific accounting provisions for capital com-
     panies (Paragraph 264 et seq. of the HGB) apply;                   7.     Is double provision for a risk properly avoided by the
                                                                        fact that, after one risk has been taken into account, only the
                                                                        loan amount arithmetically reduced thereby is then used as the
3.     where national tax law refers in another connection to           basis of assessment of the remaining other risk?
concepts or criteria from commercial accounting law?
                                                                        III. Value clarification
II. Balance-sheet treatment of loan risks
                                                                        1.     Must not only increases but also decreases in risks be
                                                                        taken into account as value clarification, going beyond the
1.     Where foreign loans have been granted, is a country risk         wording of Article 31(1)(c)(bb) of the Directive (first clause of
(foreign currency risk or transfer risk) to be included in the          Paragraph 253(1)(4) of the HGB)?
balance sheet as a value adjustment — as on the ‘Assets’ side
by means of writing down of foreign debts (Articles 19 and              2.     Does a loan repayment between the balance-sheet date
39(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive, Paragraph 253(3) and (4) of          and the date on which the balance sheet is drawn up constitute
the HGB) — also on the ‘Liabilities’ side by means of                   a (retrospectively) value-clarifying fact and not merely a
provisions (Article 20(1) of the Directive, first sentence of           value-influencing fact which has effect only in the year of
Paragraph 249(1) of the HGB) for off-balance-sheet contingent           repayment?
liabilities under guarantees for foreign debts due to third
parties (Article 14 of the Directive, Paragraph 251 of the HGB;         3.     For value clarifications of risks which are of relatively
‘risk subparticipation agreement’)?                                     slight importance for the undertaking concerned, instead of
                                                                        the period up to the signature of the balance sheet or the
2.     Is it compatible with the requirement of separate valu-          establishment of the annual accounts, may the date on which
ation of balance sheet items (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive,        valuation of the relevant balance-sheet item is completed be
Paragraph 252(1)(3) of the HGB), instead of taking risks into           taken?
account purely by individual value adjustments or provisions,
alternatively to take them into account by means of globalised
value adjustments or provisions, even if a loan default is not
preponderantly probable in the individual case:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                        Roma by order of 1 July 1999 in the criminal proceedings
(a) May a creditworthiness risk which is not acute but merely                              against Armando Caterino
     latent be covered by a global value adjustment, not only in
     the form of writing down a debt but also by means of a
     provision for a contingent (guarantee) liability?                                           (Case C-311/99)
(b) May a not preponderantly probable country risk be taken                                      (1999/C 333/30)
     into account by means of a country-related globalised
     value adjustment (globalised individual value adjustment),         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     not only in the form of writing down a debt but also by            European Communities by order of 1 July 1999 from the
     means of a provision for a contingent (guarantee) liability?       Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome), which was received
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 333/15
at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary              2. breach of Community law regarding the principle that
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino                 proceedings should be inter partes and failure to state
on the following question:                                                  sufficient reasons;
‘For the purposes of Community law, is the term “transport              3. failure to adjudicate on a crucial point in the dispute;
[of] waste on a professional basis” contained in Article 12 of          4. breach of Community law regarding defamation and
Directive 91/156/EEC(1) equivalent to “transport of waste                   failure to state sufficient reasons;
produced by others”, regard also being had to the notion
of “producer” of waste under Article 1 of that directive?               5. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged ‘confusion of
Consequently, is Article 1(19) of Law No 426/1998, which                    interests’ and failure to state sufficient reasons or to define
implements that directive, in itself in accordance or at variance           the legal situation correctly;
with the above Community legislation properly construed?’
                                                                        6. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged reluctance of
                                                                            Ismeri’s representative to resign from the management
 (1) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 amending Directi-
     ve 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78 of 26 March 1991, p. 32.               board of the ARTM (agency for transMediterranean net-
                                                                            works) and failure to state sufficient reasons.
Appeal brought on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa Srl                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                   finanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     of 15 July 1999 in the case of Finanzamt Burgdorf v
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                                           Hans-Georg Fischer
Europa Srl and Court of Auditors of the European
                            Communities                                                          (Case C-322/99)
                         (Case C-315/99 P)                                                       (1999/C 333/32)
                          (1999/C 333/31)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        of 15 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by             27 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Finanzamt Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer on the following
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                    question of interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC (1):
Europa Srl and the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the              (1) Do subsequent (deductible) bodywork repairs and respray-
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa                     ing work carried out on a car (on the purchase of which
Srl, whose registered office is in Rome, represented by Sergio              VAT was not deductible) mean, on transfer from the
Ristuccia and Gian Luigi Tosato, of the Rome Bar.                           business,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 (a) that the car must be viewed as goods on which
                                                                                VAT was partly deductible under Article 5(6) of the
— set aside the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                        Directive, or
     Court of First Instance in Case T-277/97;
                                                                            (b) that the subsequent expenditure is to be viewed as a
— uphold the forms of order sought by Ismeri at first                            component, on which VAT was deductible, of the
     instance, which are to be deemed to have been reapplied                     goods?
     for in their entirety;
                                                                        (2) If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, what are the
— order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs incurred both                business goods disposed of which are to be taxed under
     at first instance and in these appeal proceedings.                     Article 5(6) of the Directive:
                                                                            (a) the car including the work carried out on it (bodywork
Pleas and main arguments                                                         repairs and respraying) or
                                                                            (b) only the work carried out (bodywork repairs and
Pursuant to Article 225 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 of the                   respraying)?
EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Ismeri appeals against the
above judgment on the following grounds:                                (3) If Question (2) is answered in the affirmative: Is the basis
                                                                            of assessment under Article 11A(1)(b) of the Directive the
1. flaws in the procedure before the Court of Instance (failure             purchase price of the car (or an equivalent car) together
     to rule on the application for a hearing of oral evidence              with the cost of repairs each determined as at the time of
     and an inadequate preparatory inquiry) to the detriment of             disposal, or only the price of the (tax deductible) repairs
     the applicant;                                                         carried out?


title: Case C-226/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-226/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 294/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure fully to transpose Articles 8(2)(b), 11, 12 and 24(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court (Fifth Chamber):

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the period prescribed:

                           —

                           the provisions of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances into the national legislation on blasting supplies and explosives and the legislation of the Land Salzburg on electricity;

                           —

                           Article 11 of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Salzburg, Styria and Tirol;

                           —

                           Article 12 of Directive 96/82 in the Land of Upper Austria; and

                           —

                           Article 8(2)(b) of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Upper Austria, Salzburg and Tirol,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-298/97: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/157/EEC - Failure by a Member State to adopt programmes provided for in Article 6 of the directive)

text:
C 234/12                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin
                                                                      Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on
                         (Fifth Chamber)                              13 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                         of 28 May 1998                               T-275/97 between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
in    Case    C-298/97: Commission of the European
              Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                           (Case C-153/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 234/23)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directive 91/157/EEC Ð Failure by a Member State to
adopt programmes provided for in Article 6 of the
                             directive)                               An appeal against the order delivered on 13 February
                                                                      1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                           (98/C 234/22)                              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-275/97
                                                                      between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL,
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
                                                                      Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de
                                                                      Bourbon.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities of 13 February 1998;
In Case C-198/97: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by Fernando Castillo de la
Torre) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by Paloma Plaza                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
García), for an application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission
within the prescribed period the programmes provided for              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March
1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
dangerous substances (OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 38), the               Breach of general principles of Community law, in
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under           particular the right to an effective judicial remedy,
that article, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                 legitimate expectations, legal certainty and respect for the
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                    rights of the defence; failure to observe the provisions of
M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and                   the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,              Fundamental Freedoms (Article F.2 of the Maastricht
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in                    Treaty): since the decision to take no further action on the
which it:                                                             complaint did not mention the court before which an
                                                                      action could be brought, or the time-limit for doing so, it
                                                                      did not fulfil the obligation to respect the fundamental
                                                                      principles of Community law.
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
     period the programmes referred to in Article 6 of
     Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
     batteries and accumulators containing certain
     dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under that article;
                                                                      Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Federal Republic
                                                                      of Germany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-156/98)
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 234/24)
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the
                                                                      Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter


title: Case C-611/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Canal Digital Danmark A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Articles 6 and 7 — Advertising relating to a satellite TV subscription — Subscription price including, in addition to the monthly subscription charge, a six-monthly charge for the card required for decoding emissions — Six-monthly charge omitted or presented in a less conspicuous manner than the monthly charge — Misleading action — Misleading omission — Transposition of a provision of a directive only in the preparatory work for the national transposing legislation and not in the wording of that legislation itself)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Canal Digital Danmark A/S
   (Case C-611/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Advertising relating to a satellite TV subscription - Subscription price including, in addition to the monthly subscription charge, a six-monthly charge for the card required for decoding emissions - Six-monthly charge omitted or presented in a less conspicuous manner than the monthly charge - Misleading action - Misleading omission - Transposition of a provision of a directive only in the preparatory work for the national transposing legislation and not in the wording of that legislation itself))
   (2017/C 006/09)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Retten i Glostrup

      Party in the main proceedings

   Canal Digital Danmark A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(1) and (3) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing whether a commercial practice must be regarded as a misleading omission, consideration should be given to the context in which that practice takes place, in particular the limitations of the communications medium used for the purposes of that commercial practice, the limitations of time and space imposed by that communications medium and any measures taken by the trader to make the information available to consumers by other means, even though that requirement is not expressly referred to in the wording of the national legislation in question.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial practice which consists of dividing the price of a product into several components and highlighting one of them, must be regarded as misleading, since that practice would be likely, first, to give the average consumer the false impression that he has been offered a favourable price and, secondly, cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the main proceedings. However, the time constraints that may apply to certain communication media, such as television commercials, cannot be taken into account when assessing whether a commercial practice is misleading under Article 6(1) of that directive.

               3.

               Article 7 of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a trader has opted to state the price for a subscription so that the consumer must pay both a monthly charge and a six-monthly charge, that practice must be regarded as a misleading omission if the price of the monthly charge is particularly highlighted in the marketing, whilst the six-monthly charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner, if such failure causes the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. It is for the referring court to assess this, taking into account the limitations of the communication medium used, the nature and characteristics of the product and the other measures that the trader has actually taken to make material information about the product available to the consumer.

               4.

               Article 7(4) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that it contains an exhaustive list of the material information that must be included in an invitation to purchase. It is for the national court to determine whether the trader at issue has satisfied its duty to provide information, taking into account the nature and characteristics of the product but also the communication medium used for the invitation to purchase and additional information possibly provided by that trader. The fact that a trader provides, in an invitation to purchase, all the information listed in Article 7(4) of that directive does not preclude that invitation from being regarded as a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article 6(1) or Article 7(2) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-101/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2005 — Suproco v Commission (Association of the OCTs — Sugar not entitled to OCT origin — Request for a derogation from the rules of origin — Rejection of the request for a derogation — Duty to give reasons)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2005 — Suproco v Commission
   (Case T-101/03) (1)

   (Association of the OCTs - Sugar not entitled to OCT origin - Request for a derogation from the rules of origin - Rejection of the request for a derogation - Duty to give reasons)
   (2005/C 281/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Suproco (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) (represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. van Rijn and X. Lewis, agents)

      Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H. Sevenster, agent)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by initially by G. Houttuin and M. Bishop, and subsequently by G. Houttuin and D. Canga Fano, agents) and by Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, lawyer)
   Application for
   the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/34/EC of 10 January 2003 refusing to grant a derogation from Council Decision 2001/822/EC, as regards the rules of origin for sugar from the Netherlands Antilles (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 50)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/34/EC of 10 January 2003 refusing to grant a derogation from Council Decision 2001/822/EC, as regards the rules of origin for sugar from the Netherlands Antilles;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those of Suproco;

               3)

               Orders the Council, the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-463/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain)) — CLECE SA v María Socorro Martín Valor, Ayuntamiento de Cobisa (Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘transfer’ — Cleaning — Cleaning carried out directly by a municipal authority with recruitment of new staff)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha (Spain)) — CLECE SA v María Socorro Martín Valor, Ayuntamiento de Cobisa
   (Case C-463/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘transfer’ - Cleaning - Cleaning carried out directly by a municipal authority with recruitment of new staff)
   2011/C 80/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CLECE SA

      Defendants: María Socorro Martín Valor, Ayuntamiento de Cobisa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla La Mancha — Interpretation of Art. 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Scope — Municipal authority, acting as a public authority, taking over the cleaning of a public building

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the directive does not apply to a situation in which a municipal authority which has contracted out the cleaning of its premises to a private company decides to terminate its contract with that company and to undertake the cleaning of those premises itself by hiring new staff for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-348/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Total Nederland v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/20

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Total Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-348/06)
   (2007/C 20/28)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Total Nederland NV (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 13 September 2006 (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — Nederland) in so far as it finds the existence of a single continuous infringement by the applicant from 1994 to 2002 rather than from 1996 to 2002;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as:

                           (i)

                           it fails to take into account the reduced duration of the infringement referred to above;

                           (ii)

                           it fails to properly assess the gravity of the infringement;

                           (iii)

                           it fails to acknowledge the existence of mitigating circumstances;

                           (iv)

                           it increases the fine for deterrence purpose taking into account the turnover of Total SA which it wrongly considers to have participated to the applicant's infringement

               —

               reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Council Regulation 1/2003, the level of fine so as to properly reflect the nature of the applicant's involvement in the practice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by regularly collectively fixing, for sales and purchases of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands, the gross price, a uniform rebate on the gross price for participating road builders and a smaller maximum rebate on the gross price for other road builders.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into account evidence showing that the agreement from 1994 was entered into for one year only and broken off before its term and by misconstruing evidence in claiming that a continuous adherence in 1995 to some of the terms of the 1994 agreement was shown.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant actually implemented the agreement while it relied on such an implementation when assessing the gravity of the infringement.
   Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to take into account evidence demonstrating that the applicant breached the agreement.
   Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission committed an error of law by calculating the multiplier for deterrence applied to the applicant's fine on the turnover of the parent company Total SA. The Commission thereby relied, without justification, on a presumption of participation by the parent company and retained a concept of objective per se liability for the parent company.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 March 1998 in Case T-235/95: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Request for interim measures to be taken by the Commission - Powers of the Commission - Confirmatory act - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 151/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.5.98
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Araujo, officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                       of 16 March 1998                            Communities,        residing    respectively   in   Mamer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Luxembourg, Mersch (Luxembourg),
in Case T-235/95: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of               Luxembourg and Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                the European Communities (1)                       Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                                                                   of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
(Action for annulment Ð Request for interim measures to
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
be taken by the Commission Ð Powers of the
                                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent:
Commission Ð Confirmatory act Ð Lack of interest in
                                                                   Mr Timothy Millett) Ð application for the annulment of
          bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                   the express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
                         (98/C 151/15)                             reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
                                                                   allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                                                                   Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
               (Language of the case: English)                     the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
In Case T-235/95, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,           Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3                necessary, of the decisions of 17 March 1997 expressly
Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against                    rejecting their complaints, the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
Richard Lyal) Ð application for annulment of the                   President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
Commission's decision of 16 October 1995 refusing both             H. Jung, made an order on 24 March 1998, the operative
to reconsider its decision to reject the request for interim       part of which is as follows:
measures submitted by the applicant in the context of a
procedure seeking a declaration that the General Medical
Council had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
and to adopt certain other interim measures requested by
the applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                   2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
16 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those
    in the interlocutory proceedings before the President
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                                of 25 March 1998
( ) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
 1
                                                                   in Case T-202/97: Louis Koopman v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Classification in step Ð Seniority Ð
                                                                       Article 90 of the Staff Regulations Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 151/17)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 24 March 1998                                            (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-181/97: Huguette Meyer and Others v. Court of
          Justice of the European Communities (1)                  In Case T-202/97: Louis Koopman, official of the
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New                   Keerbergen (Belgium), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of
                 substantial fact Ð Time-bar)                      the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue de
                         (98/C 151/16)                             Cessange, against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and
                (Language of the case: French)                     Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for the
                                                                   annulment of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                   21 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request to be
In Case T-181/97 Huguette Meyer, IneÁs Bruno, Alba                 reclassified pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 32
Muller di Lenardo, Maria da Paz Gomez and LeÂonore                 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European


title: Case C-148/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Margita Punakova

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Margita Punakova
   (Case C-148/11)
   2011/C 152/32
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Margita Punakova

      Questions referred

   In circumstances where a claimant:

               (a)

               is a citizen of the Czech Republic;

               (b)

               came to the United Kingdom before her country acceded to the EU;

               (c)

               remained here following accession;

               (d)

               thereafter established herself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU (ex. Article 43 TEC);

               (e)

               is no longer in self-employment; and

               (f)

               is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she was established in self-employment,

         does the claimant have a right to reside in the United Kingdom on the basis that:

               (a)

               Regulation 1612/68 (1) applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99) [2002] ECR I-7091, London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (Case C-480/08);

               (b)

               there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed;

               (c)

               it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside; or

               (d)

               some other basis?

      (1)  OJ L 257, p. 2


title: Case T-544/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Dyson v Commission (Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Competence of the Commission — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Dyson v Commission
   (Case T-544/13) (1)

   ((Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Competence of the Commission - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 007/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dyson Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-423/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 15 September 2014  — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 15 September 2014 — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA
   (Case C-423/14)
   (2014/C 439/26)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fazenda Pública

      Defendant: Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Article 78(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1), preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor from being passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, that is, without being incorporated in that price?
               If the answer to that question is negative, the following question is referred for a preliminary ruling:

               2.

               Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Articles 73 to 79 of Directive 2006/112/EC, preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor, when it is passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, from being considered as a taxable amount [for the purposes of VAT]?

      (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-261/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Transfer of assets to another Member State — Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-261/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Transfer of assets to another Member State - Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains)
   2013/C 260/07
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and N. Fenger, acting as Agents.)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: K. Petersen and T. Henze, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and U. Persson, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA — Tax provisions laying down immediate taxation on exit for companies transferring assets to another Member State but not laying down an equivalent tax on transfers of assets within national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Paragraph 8(4) of the Law on taxation of the income of share companies and other matters (Lov om indkomstbeskatning af aktieselskaber m.v., lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1376, 7 December 2010), concerning the immediate taxation of the income of share companies, and consequently a tax system providing for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains relating to a transfer of assets by a company established in Denmark to another Member State of the European Union or to a non-member country party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-515/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
   (Case C-515/16)
   (2016/C 475/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF)

      Respondents: Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?

               2.

               If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?


title: Case T-461/08: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Contract awarded to another tenderer — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Jurisdiction — Obligation to state reasons — Right to an effective remedy — Transparency — Proportionality — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Selection and award criteria — Action for damages — Admissibility — Loss of profit)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
   (Case T-461/08) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Contract awarded to another tenderer - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Right to an effective remedy - Transparency - Proportionality - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Selection and award criteria - Action for damages - Admissibility - Loss of profit)
   2011/C 319/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Pietilä, Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with a call for tenders for the provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system and to award the contract to another tenderer, on the basis of Articles 225 EC and 230 EC, and, second, for damages, on the basis of Articles 225 EC, 235 EC and 288 EC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in the context of call for tenders 2007/S 176-215155 for the provision of services in the form of ‘assistance in the maintenance, support and development of the Loans Front Office system (Serapis)’ and to award the contract to Sybase BVBA;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case F-1/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Attestation procedure — Assessment of potential)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/76

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission
   (Case F-1/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Attestation procedure - Assessment of potential)
   2010/C 24/142
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the 2007 attestation procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Putterie-de-Beukelaer to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 53.


title: Case T-854/16: Action brought on 05 December 2016 — Barata v Parliament

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/44

         Action brought on 05 December 2016 — Barata v Parliament
   (Case T-854/16)
   (2017/C 038/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Joao Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, lawyers, and J. Grayston, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               annul the collectively contested decision, namely the decision of the Directorate for Human Resources Development of 29 January 2016, not to insert the applicant’s name among the list of the selected candidates and the decision of 25 August 2016 rejecting the Article 90 Staff Regulations appeal;

               —

               annul the internal notice of competition 2015/023 circulated among the staff on 18 September 2015;

               —

               annul in its entirety the draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training program;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law concerning infringement of the Staff Regulations, essential procedural requirements, as well infringement of the EU Treaties and of general principles of EU Law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and plea of illegality and inapplicability under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to the illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of sound and good administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the proportionality principle and discrimination.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of equality.


title: Case C-465/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/55

         Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-465/12 P)
   2013/C 225/103
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Plamen Simov

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria
   By order of 21 March 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-515/14 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2014 by Christodoulos Alexandrou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Case F-34/13 Alexandrou v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/56

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2014 by Christodoulos Alexandrou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Case F-34/13 Alexandrou v Commission
   (Case T-515/14 P)
   2014/C 292/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by R. Duta, lawyer)

      Respondent: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               admit the present appeal, declare it well founded;

               —

               therefore, amend or set aside the judgment under appeal, on the basis of the grounds set out;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, refer the case in the course of the proceedings to the European Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the entirety of the costs and expenses of the two proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the appellant invokes three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal alleges a failure to give sufficient reasons in the contested decision, connected in particular with the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant’s application to have access to the seven questions which he allegedly failed.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the right to an effective remedy, in so far as, without having the questions requested at his disposal, the appellant was deprived of the means of an effective remedy against the decision to reject his application.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal alleges a failure, by the Civil Service Tribunal, to use Article 4(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.


title: Case C-145/11: Action brought on 25 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/12

         Action brought on 25 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-145/11)
   2011/C 160/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by refusing to approve two applications for marketing authorisations of the veterinary medicinal products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure laid down by Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Commission submits that the abovementioned Directive 2001/82/EC does not allow a Member State, in the context of the decentralised procedure, to carry out a legal and scientific assessment of an application for authorisation. The purpose of the validation phase is merely to verify if the dossier submitted is identical in all the Member States, if it is complete, and if it includes the list of Member States concerned, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 32(1) of the directive. The applicant thus criticises the defendant for refusing applications for authorisation by relying inter alia on grounds concerning the composition of the medicinal product and its pharmaceutical form, its alleged non-compliance with national law and the possible dangers to public health.
   The Commission also points out that, at the validation stage, the Member States affected by an application for authorisation have the obligation to approve the assessment report submitted by the reference Member State, unless they invoke a serious potential risk to human or animal health or the environment, in compliance with Article 33 of the directive. The French authorities therefore failed to follow the procedure laid down by that article.

      (1)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).