title: Case C-425/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 18 September 2012 — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA v Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 18 September 2012 — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA v Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional
   (Case C-425/12)
   2012/C 389/04
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA

      Defendant: Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional

      Question referred

   May Articles 4(1) and 14(1)(c)(i) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 98/04/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, and the other provisions of those Directives and the general principles of Community law applicable, be interpreted as meaning that they create obligations for private individuals who are public service concession-holders (in particular an entity covered by Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/38/EEC), where that Directive has not been transposed into national law by the Portuguese State, so that failure to fulfil those obligations may be invoked against that private concession-holding entity by the Portuguese State by means of an act attributable to one of its Ministries?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 101, p.1.


title: Case T-101/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Poland v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/68

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-101/10)
   2010/C 113/101
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, (1) to the extent to which that article recasts Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year; (2)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested provision introduced a difference in coefficients for the additional production levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2004/2005 in that that coefficient was established in the amount of 0.25466 for the new Member States, whereas it was established in the amount of 0.14911 for the States of the Community of Fifteen.
   The applicant raises the following heads of complaint in respect of the contested provision:

               First, the applicant alleges that there was a lack of competence on the part of the Commission and a breach of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, (3) which authorised the Commission solely to establish one single coefficient in a uniform amount for the whole of the Union. The applicant submits that the various language versions of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 are to that extent perfectly in line with one another and unambiguous. The applicant further submits that the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector cannot constitute justification for departing from the literal construction of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and, indeed, rather exclude any such departure. In the applicant’s view, a uniform coefficient constituted an essential instrument for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

               Second, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of the principle that new Member States must give immediate and full effect to the acquis communautaire. In the applicant’s view, the contested provision is de facto a transitional measure which lacks any basis in the 2003 Act of Accession or in the measures adopted pursuant thereto. The applicant cites in this regard Article 2 of the Act of Accession, which forms the basis for the full adoption by the Republic of Poland of all rights and obligations resulting from membership, and thus also, according to the applicant, of the right to benefit from excess payments and duties covering losses on the sugar market which have arisen in previous marketing years.

               Third, the applicant alleges that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicant, the sole criterion for the difference in coefficients is the date on which Member States acceded to the European Union. It contends that the accession of new Member States cannot, by itself, constitute an objective criterion capable of justifying the distinction introduced inasmuch as the consequences of accession were exhaustively regulated in the Act of Accession and in the measures adopted pursuant thereto.

               Fourth, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of solidarity. It submits that the principle of solidarity among producers is a fundamental principle of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and implies that the costs of financing that market are to be borne jointly by all producers, and financial neutrality is achieved, not on the basis of individual Member States, but rather on the basis of the entire Union, in accordance with objective criteria. A distinction in coefficients with regard to individual Member States is, according to the applicant, indicative of an arbitrary and disproportionate distribution of the costs of financing the sugar market which demonstrates a lack of solidarity.

               Fifth, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of Article 253 EC (now the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU) by reason of the inadequate reasoning of the contested provision. In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission failed to define either the circumstances which would justify a difference in coefficients or the objectives to be served by such a difference.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 321 of 8.12.2009, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271 of 15.10.2005, p. 12).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178 of 30.06.2001, p. 1).


title: Case T-208/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Richard Anton v ECHA

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/25

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Richard Anton v ECHA
   (Case T-208/14)
   2014/C 202/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Richard Anton KG (Grâfelfing, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the decision No SME(2013) 4524 of 21 January 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency as well as invoice No 10046845 of 23 January 2014 to be void; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging alleging the defendant’s lack of competence

                           —

                           The defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME(2013) 4524. Neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958

                           —

                           In its entire communication with the applicant, the defendant disregarded its obligation to address a person subject to the sovereignty of a Member State in the official language of that state. This breach of law has prevented the applicant from fulfilling the requirements demanded on him with regard to proving its status as a small enterprise.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unjustified and the administrative charge levied upon the applicant is disproportionate

                           —

                           The contested decisions are wrong on the substance. The applicant was entitled to benefit from a fee reduction according to Regulation (EC) 340/2008. The defendant’s invoice regarding the administrative charge is not justified because the administrative charge has been levied upon the applicant on the basis of an erroneous procedure. The administrative charge lacks an appropriate legal basis and is disproportionate.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


title: Case F-84/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — CN v Council (Civil service — Article 78 of the Statute — Invalidity Committee — Medical report — Medical data of a psychiatric or psychological nature — Confidentiality of medical information — Access — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/33

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — CN v Council
      (Case F-84/12) (1)

      (Civil service - Article 78 of the Statute - Invalidity Committee - Medical report - Medical data of a psychiatric or psychological nature - Confidentiality of medical information - Access - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
      (2014/C 71/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision refusing the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor of that committee.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CN to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 295, 29.09.2012 p. 35.


title: Case C-201/09 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2009 by ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission.

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/19

         Appeal brought on 8 June 2009 by ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission.
   (Case C-201/09 P)
   2009/C 205/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International, formerly Arcelor International SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-405/06 to the extent that it upholds, in relation to ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its forms of order, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
   In its first ground of appeal, which has two parts, the appellant claims, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 97 CS and misused its powers by applying Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on 23 July 2002. The obligation on the institutions to interpret the various treaties consistently cannot in any circumstances justify the retention in the Community legal order of the provisions of a treaty after its expiry.
   In the second part of that ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and misused its powers by holding that the legal basis for the Commission’s adoption of a decision under Article 65 CS was a regulation which confers powers on the Commission only in relation to the implementation of Articles 81 and 82 EC. Adopted after expiry of the ECSC Treaty under the EC Treaty alone, that regulation could not confer on the Commission any powers to impose penalties for a contravention of Article 65 CS, unless both the ECSC Treaty and the rule of the hierarchy of norms were to be disregarded.
   In its second ground of appeal, which has three parts, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance fails to observe the principle that penalties must fit the offence, the case-law of the Court of Justice on attribution of responsibility, the principle of res judicata and the rule of the hierarchy of norms, in that the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was entitled to attribute to one company responsibility for an anti-competitive practice of another member of a group, in which the former company had no part. Neither the fact that the various companies in question, belonging to the same group, were a single economic unit, nor the fact that the parent company had 100 % control of the subsidiary which committed the offence, nor even the fact that the influence of the parent company on its subsidiary was decisive, was sufficient to prove that the appellant had any part in the offence and therefore could not justify the attribution of responsibility for the conduct of the subsidiary to the parent company.
   In its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance incorrectly applied the rules relating to the limitation period of proceedings and failed to observe the principle of res judicata, in that the Court of First Instance, in its judgment, found that the appellant had committed acts which interrupted the limitation period, when it was very clear from the Commission’s original decision, adopted in 1994, that the appellant was expressly identified as having not taken part in the offence.
   In its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims lastly that the judgment of the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to its rights of defence since the judgment is vitiated by a failure to state reasons in relation to the particularly lengthy duration of the procedure, which meant that it was no longer possible for the appellant to produce the evidence required to displace the presumption that it was responsible. In addition, the judgment of the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 2 October 2003 in Case C-176/99 P ARBED v Commission which held that the Commission’s decision should be annulled to the extent that it related to the applicant.

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


title: Case C-202/01: Action brought on 16 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
28.7.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/13
Action brought on 16 May 2001 by the Commission of                       —     By April 2000, 41 of the 96 sites listed in the IACB as
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          wetlands of international importance had not yet been
                                                                               classified by France as special protection areas and in the
                                                                               case of at least 4 of the 45 sites which had been so
                          (Case C-202/01)                                      classified, the classification applied only to the minimum
                                                                               surface area possible — notwithstanding the fact that
                                                                               Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409/EEC requires that such
                          (2001/C 212/21)                                      sites be classified as special protection areas in order to
                                                                               protect wetlands and the species of bird which live there,
                                                                               particularly migratory species. There has not yet been any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   significant improvement in this situation.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 May
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,          (Infringement procedure 97/4527 concerning the application
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               of the Directive to the Plaine des Maures)
                                                                         —     In classifying as special protection areas no more than
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    879 hectares out of the 7 500 hectares covered by the
                                                                               IACB (that is to say, 11.72 %), France has also failed to
—     Declare that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                fulfil its obligation under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive
      obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of                        79/409/EEC to classify as special protection areas the
      2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and                   most suitable territories in number and size.
      under the Treaty establishing the European Community,
      in that it has not, in satisfactory measure, classified as
      special protection areas the territories most suitable for         (1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
      the conservation of the species of wild bird listed in             (2) Case C-3/96 Commission v Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031.
      Annex I to that Directive or of migratory species of bird,
      and, in particular, in that it has not classified as a special
      protection area a sufficiently large area of land on the
      Plaine des Maures;
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                                lands
(Infringement procedure 97/2004 concerning the application
of the Directive in general)                                                                       (Case C-205/01)
—     When the deadline provided for in Article 18 of Directive                                    (2001/C 212/22)
      79/409/EEC expired on 16 April 1989, the French
      Republic had not yet adopted the measures necessary to
      comply with its obligations under Article 4 thereof. The           An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      special protection areas designated so far are insufficient        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      in terms of number, size and quality to meet the                   18 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities,
      protection needs of the species of bird concerned. Only            represented by R. Wainright and J. Stuyck, acting as Agents.
      40,7 % of the 285 sites named in the official list of
      ‘Important areas for the conservation of birds’ (the IACB)         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      — published in 1994 by the French Ministry of the
      Environment and the League for the Protection of Birds             —     Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
      and based on the most reliable scientific data then                      and administrative provisions necessary in order to
      available — and only 18,2 % of the land covered by those                 implement in national law Articles 8(2), 11, 18(1) and
      sites has been classed, in whole or in part, as special                  22(1) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC(1) of 24 Novem-
      protection areas. The Court of Justice has recognised that               ber 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
      those lists are relevant and may be relied upon in actions               administrative provisions of the Member States regarding
      against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations (2).             the protection of animals used for experimental and other
      According to the Commission, the French Government                       scientific purposes, or in any case by failing to inform the
      has not yet drawn up a list showing that the findings of                 Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the
      the IACB are unsound and the latter remains the best                     Netherlands has failed to take the measures necessary to
      scientific evidence available on the basis of which to                   comply with Article 25 of Directive 86/609/EEC that are
      make an overall assessment of the classifications effected               necessary to comply with the directive by 24 November
      by France in respect of its territory.                                   1989 at the latest;


title: Case T-341/10: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/23

         Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission
   (Case T-341/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - No challengeable act - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 174/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg); Julien Bonnetaud (Yutz, France); Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, France); Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Germany); Stéphane Martine (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg); Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-Grande, France); and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (represented by L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by G. Rozet and P. Van Nuffel, agents

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF) (Mondercange, Luxembourg) (represented initially by K. Daly, solicitor, and D. Keane, SC, then by K. Daly)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application for any appropriate order.

      Operative part of the order

   The General Court orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

               3.

               The Fédération luxembourgeoise de football (FLF) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-310/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/59

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission
   (Case T-310/14)
   2014/C 223/61
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fritz Winter Eisengießerei GmbH & Co. KG (Stadallendorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2003 in Case T-226/02: André Hecq v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 171/26                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              19.7.2003
Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, established in Essen (Germany),                    repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63,
and Metal Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, established in Düssel-                    p. 23) and a claim for compensation for the damage allegedly
dorf (Germany) represented by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an                   suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of                  composed of V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, P. Mengozzi
the European Communities (Agents: J. Forman and R. Raith) —                   and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
application, first, for the annulment of Commission Regulation                21 March 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
(EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional
safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products
(OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) and, second, a claim for damages —                       1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible so far as it concerns
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                            the annulment of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European
B. Vesterdorf, President R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,                             Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 March 2003,                         Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
the operative part of which is as follows:                                          feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/
                                                                                EEC.
1.     There is no need to give a decision on the claim for annulment.
                                                                              2.    The requests submitted by the defendants that the action, in so
2.     The application for a ruling on the admissibility of the claim               far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered,
       for damages is joined to the application on the substance.                   should be held inadmissible, are reserved for final judgment.
3.     The costs are reserved.                                                3.    Costs are reserved.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.02.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 180.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 21 March 2003
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-167/02: Établissements Toulorge v European
      Parliament and Council of the European Union ( 1)                                                 of 31 March 2003
(Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons —
Measures of direct and individual concern to them —                           in Case T-226/02: André Hecq v Commission of the
Directive 2002/2/EC — Inadmissibility — Claim for dam-                                            European Communities (1)
                                  ages)
                                                                              (Officials — Action for annulment — Act adversely affect-
                           (2003/C 171/43)                                                     ing an official — Inadmissibility)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-167/02: Établissements Toulorge, established in
Bricquebec (France), represented by D. Waelbroeck and
D. Brinckman, lawyers, against European Parliament (Agents:
C. Pennera and Mme E. Waldherr) and Council of the European
Union (Agents: I. Diez Parra and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi),
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                         In Case T-226/02: André Hecq, an official of the Commission
D. Plessing nad M. Lumma) and Commission of the European                      of the European Communities, residing in Mondercange
Communities (Agent: A. Bordes) — application for the annul-                   (Luxembourg), represented by L. Vogel and D. Amatulli,
ment of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and                    lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive                  ties (Agent: M. Currall) — application for the annulment of the
79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and                   Commission decision of 15 June 2001 approving the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 171/27
agreement between Vice-President Kinnock and the trade                      1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
unions and staff associations of the Commission concerning
the resources available to staff representatives and the rules on           2.    Each party shall pay its own costs.
the resources available to staff representatives from 1 January
2002 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,                (1 ) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 March 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.     Each party shall pay its own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.                                                                            of 3 April 2003
                                                                            in Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Action now devoid of
                                                                                purpose — No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/46)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 31 March 2003
in Case T-227/02: André Hecq v Commission of the                            In Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes, a former official of the
                    European Communities ( 1)                               European Parliament, residing in Waldbredimus (Luxem-
                                                                            bourg), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg, against the European Parliament
   (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Inadmissibility)                   (Agents: H. von Hertzen and L. G. Knudsen) — application for
                                                                            annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            European Parliament of 4 January 2002 refusing to treat his
                           (2003/C 171/45)                                  marriage to a person of the same sex, contracted under the
                                                                            Netherlands Law of 21 December 2000, as falling within the
                                                                            definition of marriage for the purpose of the Staff Regulations
                                                                            and to grant him all the rights, privileges and immunities
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            arising from the applicable Community provisions — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
                                                                            President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            Registrar, made an order on 3 April 2003, the operative part
                                                                            of which is as follows:
In Case T-227/02: André Hecq, Secretary-General and rep-
resentative of the Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
et Européens (SFIE), residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg),                  1)    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the present
represented by L. Vogel and D. Amatulli, lawyers, against the                     action.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for the annulment of the Commission decision                  2)    There is no need to give a decision on the Kingdom of the
of 15 June 2001, approving the agreement between Vice                             Netherlands’ application to intervene.
President Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
of the Commission concerning the resources available to staff               3)    The Parliament shall pay both the applicant’s and its own costs.
representatives and the rules on the resources available to staff
representatives from 1 January 2002 — the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President              (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.02.
and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case T-230/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Obligation to justify expenditure — Conditions for recognition of producer organisations)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-230/10) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Obligation to justify expenditure - Conditions for recognition of producer organisations)
   2012/C 118/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez and A. Rubio González, and subsequently by Rubio González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the fruit and vegetables sector.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-101/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, Luxembourg lodged on 5 March 2008 — Audiolux S.A., BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine de Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Marc Meyer et Jean Petitdidier v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), RTL Group SA, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ) — Interveners: Dexia Luxpart SA e.a.

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, Luxembourg lodged on 5 March 2008 — Audiolux S.A., BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine de Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Marc Meyer et Jean Petitdidier v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), RTL Group SA, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ) — Interveners: Dexia Luxpart SA e.a.
   (Case C-101/08)
   (2008/C 116/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Audiolux S.A., BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine de Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Marc Meyer et Jean Petitdidier

      Defendants: Groupe Bruxelles Lambert (GBL), RTL Group SA, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the references to the equality of shareholders, and more specifically, to the protection of minorities

                           (a)

                           in Articles 20 and 42 of the Second Company Directive 77/91/EC of 13 December 1976 (1);

                           (b)

                           in the Third General Principle and Supplementary Principle 17 of the Commission Recommendation of 25 July 1977 concerning a European code of conduct relating to transactions in transferable securities (2);

                           (c)

                           in Schedule C, point 2(A) annexed to Council Directive 79/279/EEC of 5 March 1979 coordinating the conditions for the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and carried over in the consolidating directive of 28 May 2001 (3);

                           (d)

                           in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2004/25/EC of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, read together with the eight recital in the preamble thereto (4)

                     manifestations of a general principle of Community law and did that general principle exist as such before the adoption of Directive 2004/25/EC?

               2.

               Does that general principle of Community law apply only to the relations between a company and its shareholders or, on the contrary, does it also apply to the relations between majority shareholders exercising or acquiring control of a company and the minority shareholders of that company?

               3.

               If the answer to the foregoing two questions is in the affirmative, must that general principle of Community law be regarded, having regard to the development in time of the references referred to in Question 1, as having existed and being binding on the relations between majority and minority shareholders within the meaning of Question 2 before the entry into force of the abovementioned Directive 2004/25/EC and before the facts at issue, which occurred during the first half of 2001?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 212 p. 37.

      (3)  OJ 1979 L 66, p. 21.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


title: Case C-390/14: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Criminal proceedings against Masoud Mehrabipari

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — Criminal proceedings against Masoud Mehrabipari
   (Case C-390/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case C-242/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Commerz Nederland NV v Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Definition of aid — Guarantees provided by a public undertaking to a bank to facilitate lending to third party creditors — Guarantees deliberately provided by the director of that public undertaking in disregard of that undertaking’s statutes — Presumption of opposition by the public body that owns that undertaking — Whether the guarantees may be imputed to the State)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Commerz Nederland NV v Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV
   (Case C-242/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Definition of aid - Guarantees provided by a public undertaking to a bank to facilitate lending to third party creditors - Guarantees deliberately provided by the director of that public undertaking in disregard of that undertaking’s statutes - Presumption of opposition by the public body that owns that undertaking - Whether the guarantees may be imputed to the State))
   2014/C 421/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Commerz Nederland NV

      Respondent: Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 107(1) TFEU, for the purposes of determining whether or not the guarantees provided by a public undertaking are imputable to the public authority controlling that undertaking, the following are relevant, together with the body of evidence arising from the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings and from the context in which they took place: on the one hand, that the sole director of the company providing those guarantees acted improperly, deliberately kept the provision of those guarantees secret and disregarded the undertaking’s statutes and, on the other, that that public authority would have opposed the provision of the guarantees, had it been informed of it. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those circumstances could, in themselves, exclude such imputability only if it may be inferred that the guarantees at issue were provided without the involvement of that same public authority.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-424/06: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-424/06) (1)

   (2008/C 171/49)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-298/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant
   (Case C-298/13)
   2013/C 215/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

      Defendants: Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the court must of its own motion examine compliance with the provisions of the Directive and the national provisions resulting from it?

               2.

               Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that the creditor is deemed to have performed its pre-contractual obligations under the national law transposing the Directive if the creditor produces to the court only the credit agreement drawn up pursuant to Article 10 of the Directive, to the exclusion of any document showing compliance with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations?

               3.

               Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning that proof of the performance. of the creditor’s obligations in relation to the consumer, as laid down by the national law transposing the Directive, is not established without the production by the creditor to the court of the documents showing the nature of the information given to the consumer and the information obtained to assess his creditworthiness, without there being any need for the consumer to bear the burden of proof of those omissions?

               4.

               Does the creditor’s failure to perform the pre-contractual obligations of information and checking the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for by the national law derived from Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning 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,? (2)

               5.

               Is Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers to be interpreted as meaning, where appropriate in the light of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, that non-compliance with the pre-contractual information obligations or the obligation to check the consumer’s creditworthiness as required by the national law transposing the Directive, does not permit the creditor to recover the outstanding amounts from the borrower whose default may arise from the creditor’s failure to meet its obligations?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

      (2)  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 (‘directive on commercial practices’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case T-537/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — De Loecker v EEAS

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/40

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — De Loecker v EEAS
   (Case T-537/17)
   (2017/C 347/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and order that

                           —

                           the decision of 10 October 2016 by which the European External Action Service requested the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker is annulled;

                           —

                           the European External Action Service shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

                           —

                           the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the defendant, by adopting the decision of 10 October 2016 by which it rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant (‘the contested decision’) disregarded the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2015, De Loecker v EEAS (F-34/15, EU:F:2015:153). The applicant is also of the opinion that the defendant disregarded the procedure implemented by the Commission Investigating and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) following the judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission (T-270/16, not published, EU:T:2017:74).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and, more particularly, infringement of the right to be heard and of the right of access to the file flowing from Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 February 1995 in Case T-308/94 R: Cascades SA v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 101 /8          T EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 4 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard ) ( ) in so far as
                      of 21 February 1995                             those articles require the applicant to pay a fine of ECU 1 6,2
                                                                      million by no later than 4 November 1994 (2 ) and, as a
in Case T- 1 1 7/94 : Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia        precautionary measure, application for suspension of the
di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the European                    operation of Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision until such time
                        Communities i 1 )                             as a decision is reached on the present application for
                         (Inadmissibility)                            interim measures or until such date as the President of the
                            95/C 101 /21                              Court of First Instance may determine — the President of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance made an order on 17 February 1 995 ,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       the operative part of which is as follows :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          1 . The obligation on the applicant to provide a bank
         published in the European Court Reports)                         guarantee in favour of the Commission in order to avoid
                                                                          immediate recovery of the fine imposed on the applicant
In Case T- 1 1 7/94 : Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia            by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601 /EC of
di Rovigo, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di                   13 July 1 994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine,                     the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) is
Cirillo Brena , Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele, all                  suspended, subject to the following conditions:
represented by Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   (a ) the applicant shall provide that guarantee in the
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the                           amount of 30% of the fine, plus interest due in
European Communities (Agent: L. Gussetti ) — application                        accordance with the letter of notification of
for annulment of the Commission decision of 15 October
                                                                                1 August 1 994, within three weeks of notification
1993 in so far as it grants financial support to the Veneto                     of the present order;
region for implementation of action in the Po delta area and
for annulment of the contract between the Commission and
                                                                          ( b ) the applicant shall provide the balance of the
the Italian Environment Ministry which resulted therefrom                       guarantee, plus the abovementioned interest,
— the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed                       within six months of notification of the present
of: K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen and R.                                 order.
Garci'a-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 21 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                             1 . Until such time as the full amount of the guarantee has
                                                                          been provided, or, failing that, until expiry of the period
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                         specified in point 1 (b) of the operative part of the
                                                                          present order, the applicant shall forward to the
2 , the applicants are jointly ordererd to bear the costs.                Commission:
(!) OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                          (a ) on a monthly basis, the principal data relating to
                                                                                changes in its economic and financial situation,
                                                                                data which are to be specified by the Commission
                                                                                following notification of the present order;
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                          ( b ) prior to its adoption, any decision which is likely to
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                have a substantial effect on the applicant's
                      of 17 February 1995                                       economic situation or which seeks to alter its legal
in Case T-308/94 R: Cascades SA v. Commission of the                            status .
                   European Communities
                          ( 95/C 101 /22                              3 . The suspension granted under point 1 (b) of the
                                                                          operative part of the present order shall cease to have
                (Language of the case: French)                            effect if the applicant fails to forward to the
                                                                          Commission, within three weeks of notification of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              present order:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          ( a ) the approval, by the Board ofDirectors of Cascades
In Case T-308/94 R: Cascades SA, having its registered                          Inc., of intervention by that company for the
office in Bagnolet ( France ), represented by Jean-Louis                        purpose of making available to the applicant the
Fourgoux, Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, of the Paris Bar,                       funds necessary for the provision of the balance of
and Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                     the guarantee, as referred to in point 1 (b) of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                         operative part of the present order and within the
8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the                           period there specified;
European Communities (Agents : R. Lyal and G. de Bergues )
— application for suspension, until conclusion of the                     ( b ) the undertaking by Cascades Inc. to provide, on the
substantive proceedings in Case T-308/94, of the operation                      applicant's behalf, the balance of the guarantee as
of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 94/601 /EC of                        referred to in point 1 (b) of the operative part of the
13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the                   present order in the event that, prior to the expiry of
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 4. 95            | EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /9
           the period there specified, the applicant should be           — award him compensation of ECU 13 900 for damage
           wound-up by court order without having provided                    sustained .
           that balance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
4.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission,
t 1 ) OJ No L 243 , 19 . 9 . 1994, p . 1 .                               dated 26 April 1994, by which the Commission rejected his
                                                                         application for a fellowship at the University of London, in
                                                                         the field of research and technological development, on the
                                                                         basis that, having both British and Greek nationality, he
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  would not satisfy the eligibility requirements, according to
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                which the applicant must be :
                       of 24 February 1995                               ( a ) a national of a Community Member State or an
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the                       associated State or a natural person resident in the
                     European Communities                                      Community; and
                             ( 95/C 101 /23
                                                                         ( b ) a national of a country other than that in which the
                  (Language of the case: French)                               laboratory is established and must not have carried out
                                                                               his/her normal activity in that country for more than
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   two years prior to the date of submission of the
           published in the European Court Reports)                            application.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels, an official of the                  The applicant has neither Greek nor British nationality, is a
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                      'British overseas citizen', and as such, belongs to a specific
Arlon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure                 category of aliens who need both a residence and a work
and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             permit in order to live and work in the United Kingdom.
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 'British overseas citizens' are not treated as European Union
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                      nationals in any Member State .
Communities (Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) — application for
suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 imposing on the applicant                  Consequently, the applicant fulfilled both the nationality
                                                                         and the mobility criteria of eligibility laid down in the
the disciplinary measure of removal from post — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                ' General Conditions Governing Research Training
24 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                     Fellowships ', since he is a natural person not having the
follows :                                                                nationality of any EC Member State, resident in Greece,
                                                                         seeking to move to the United Kingdom and having never in
 1 , implementation of the decision of the Commission is                 his life carried out a normal activity in the United
      suspended until delivery of the final order in the                 Kingdom.
      proceedings for interim relief;
2 , the costs are reserved.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by 'Atlanta'
                                                                         Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH and
Action brought on 10 January 1995 by Frederick Farrugia                  Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-230/94 )                                                       (Case T-18/95 )
                               95/C 101 /24 )                                                     ( 95/C 101/25
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1995                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 by Frederick Farrugia, represented by L. Sissilianos, of the            Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995
Athens Bar, Kanari 4, Athens, Greece.                                    by 'Atlanta ' Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH of
                                                                         Bremen ( Federal Republic of Germany) and Internationale
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Frachtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co of Hamburg
                                                                          ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Erik A.
— annul the decision of the Commission to reject his                     Undritz and Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwàlte, with an address
      application for a research training fellowship on                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,
      eligibility grounds,                                               24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .


title: Case T-477/08: Action brought on 3 November 2008 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/39

         Action brought on 3 November 2008 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)
   (Case T-477/08)
   (2009/C 6/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Revoke the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 1694/2007-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AVANZALENE’ for goods in class 5 — application No 4 632 501

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 3 331 444 of the word mark ‘AVANZ’ for goods in class 5

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-169/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — Charlott v OHIM — Charlo (Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition — Earlier figurative national mark Charlot — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — Charlott v OHIM — Charlo (Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition)
   (Case T-169/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition - Earlier figurative national mark Charlot - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 315/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Charlott SARL (Chaponost, France) (represented by: L. Conrad, T. Parisot and L. Tremeaud, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Charlo — Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA.
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2006 (Case R 223/205-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Charlo — Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA and Charlott SARL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Charlott SARL to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders Charlo — Confecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã e Outros SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Christophe Gimenez against the Committee of the Regions (Case T-220/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/17
Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Ana Maria Moles               As her final plea in support of her application for the
Garria-Ortuzar against the Commission of the European               annulment of the contested decision, the applicant points
                          Communities                               out that there has been a misuse of powers in the present
                       ( Case T-216/95 )                            case, based on the fact that the excessive difficulty of the
                                                                    tests resulted from a wish on the part of the administration
                           96/C 16/37 )
                                                                    not to fill the available posts.
                                                                    The objection of illegality raised against the notice of
               (Language of the case: French)                       competition is based on an alleged infringement of Article
                                                                    1 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
1995 by Ana Maria Moles Garcia-Ortuzar, residing in
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège
Bar .                                                               Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Lucia Passera
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-217/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     ( 96/C 16/38 )
— annul the decision of the competition selection board                               (Language of the case: French)
    not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    based on tests,                                                 Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                    1995 by Lucia Passera, residing at Overijse ( Belgium),
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    — annul the decision of the competition selection board
                                                                         not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade CI ,
contests both the decision of the selection board in internal
                                                                    — annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93
competition COM/B/9/93 based on tests to exclude her                     based on tests,
from the list of successful candidates and, by way of
objection of illegality, the notice of competition itself.
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
She pleads, first, a breach of the obligation to provide a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
statement of reasons, in that the contested decision fails to
mention either the assessment criteria adopted or the way in        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
which those criteria were applied to her. Moreover, the             in Case T-216/95 .
Court should find that the notice of competition has not
been complied with and that the purpose of the tests has not
been observed, inasmuch as, first, the candidates were asked
questions during the oral interview which bore no relation
to those which they were legitimately entitled to expect, and,
second, those questions had no direct bearing on the
functions to be fulfilled or the applicant's ability to perform     Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Christophe
them.                                                                       Gimenez against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                ( Case T-220/95 )
According to the applicant, the Commission also acted                                           ( 96/C 16/39 )
contrary to the nature of the competition in issue, since the
interviews held by the selection board were based in                                  (Language of the case: French)
particular on the candidates' personal files, whereas the
competition was supposed to have been organized solely on
the basis of tests .                                                An action against the Committee of the Regions was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 4 December 1995 by Christophe Gimenez,
Furthermore, the fact that the applicant, who holds a               residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
university qualification and has been awarded high marks in         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
her staff reports, was not included amongst the successful          at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
candidates demonstrates a manifest error of assessment .            Rheinsheim .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/ 18             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         staff to fill permanent posts on the basis of contracts of one
— annul the decision of the selection board in internal
                                                                    year's duration, without any prior selection; ( b ) the
                                                                    organization of ' bogus' internal competitions leading to
    competition CdR-A/03/95 rejecting the application of            establishment within the shortest period possible; and ( c )
    the applicant,                                                  the establishment of all staff members recruited by the
— annul          the    notice   of   internal    competition       Committee of the Regions, and of those staff members
    CdR-A/03/95 ,                                                   alone . He states that that manner of proceeding manifestly
                                                                    disregards the letter and spirit of the Staff Regulations of
— annul the appointment of the members of the selection             officials, as well as the general principles governing the way
    board in internal competition CdR-A/03/95 ,                     in which any public administration should operate in
                                                                    recruitment matters .
— alternatively, in the event that the first two heads of
    claim are rejected, order the adoption of all such interim
    or definitive measures as may be necessary for the              The applicant further considers that the decision rejecting
    suspension or abeyance of the recruitment procedure             his application necessarily implies , first, infringement of
    currently pending,                                              Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and, second,
                                                                    infringement of the provisions of Protocol No 16 annexed to
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                             the Treaty on European Union, in the light of the principle of
                                                                    equality of treatment, inasmuch as he works for the same
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 common organizational structure as the members of the
The applicant states that he entered the service of the             temporary staff admitted to the competition. The contested
Economic and Social Committee as a member of the                    decision is also vitiated by a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment .
temporary staff on 3 March 1993 and that, in consequence
of the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, he
was assigned to a post in the service of the common                 As regards the notice of competition, the applicant
organizational structure of the Economic and Social                 maintains that it does not fulfil the conditions laid down by
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. On                      Article 1 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and is
30 October 1995 he was informed by a staff notice, a copy           consequently illegal . The notice will also be contrary to
of which was sent to him, of the organization of internal           Protocol No 16 to the Treaty on European Union if it is
competition CdR-A/03/95 to constitute a reserve for future          possible to infer from its provisions that applications
recruitment of administrators/assistant administrators; that        submitted by certain members of the temporary staff
competition was open to the staff of the common                     working for the common organizational structure can be
organizational structure. The applicant submitted his               rejected by reason of the fact that the powers conferred on
                                                                    the appointing authority are exercised, in relation to them,
application by note dated 16 November 1995 . On
27 November 1995 he was informed that the selection                 by the Economic and Social Committee .
board had decided not to admit him to the competition,
since it considered that he did not fulfil the condition of         Lastly, the applicant pleads the illegality of the decisions
membership of the staff of the common organizational                appointing the members of the selection board, in that, first,
                                                                    the Staff Committee of the Economic and Social Committee
structure laid down by the notice of competition.
                                                                    was not involved in the' procedure for appointing the
The applicant maintains that that decision forms part of a          selection board, contrary to the first paragraph of Article 3
general strategy developed by the Committee of the Regions          of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and, second, the
in order to be able to recruit without difficulty persons           members of the selection board were appointed from
having 'contacts' amongst the representatives of the regions.       amongst persons who entered the service of the Committee
According to the applicant, that recruitment process                of the Regions pursuant to a recruitment policy which was
involves : ( a ) the recruitment of members of the temporary        itself illegal .


title: Case C-163/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (United Kingdom) made on 8 May 2009 — Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (United Kingdom) made on 8 May 2009 — Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-163/09)
   2009/C 180/47
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (United Kingdom)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Repertoire Culinaire Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are cooking wine and cooking port subject to excise duty under Directive 92/83/EEC (1) in the Member State of importation on the grounds that they are within the definition of ‘ethyl alcohol’ under the first indent of article 20 of Directive 92/83?

               2.

               Is it consistent with the Member State's obligation to give effect to the exemption contained in article 27.1(f) of Directive 92/83, when read with article 27(6), and/or with article 28 EC and/or with the direct effect of those obligations and/or with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality to restrict the exemption for cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac to cases where alcoholic beverages have been used as an ingredient and to restrict the applicants for exemption to those persons who have used the alcoholic beverages as an ingredient in products and/or those persons who carry on business as wholesalers of such products and/or they produced or manufactured such products for the purposes of that business and subject to the further conditions that claims be made within an overall period of four months from the payment of duty and that the amount of the repayment be not less than £250?

               3.

               Should the cooking wine and cooking port, if liable to duty under the first indent of article 20 of Directive 92/83, and/or the cooking cognac, subject to the present appeal, be treated as exempt from excise duty at the point of manufacture under article 27.1(f), alternatively article 27.1(e), of Directive 92/83?

               4.

               In the light of articles 10 and 28 EC. what effect, if any does it have on Member States’ obligations under articles 20 and 27.1(f), alternatively article 27.1(e), of Directive 92/83 if cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac have been released by the Member State of manufacture from the excise movement system under Directive 92/12 into free movement within the European Union?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages OJ L 316, p. 21


title: Case C-299/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Amares (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Cristiano Marques Vieira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Amares (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Cristiano Marques Vieira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA
   (Case C-299/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/41
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial de Amares

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cristiano Marques Vieira

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

      Question referred

   In a motor vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation, who is a minor), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Directive 72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil Code)) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: Case F-44/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/27

         Action brought on 18 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-44/15)
   (2015/C 221/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Bellotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to appoint a person other than the applicant as head of the unit C4 (‘Legal Advice’), the applicant having acted as head of that unit since the departure of the previous head of unit and having submitted an application in response to the vacancy notice for that post.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision, under the reference Ares (2015)43686, of 7 January 2015, dismissing the complaint brought on 30 September 2014 (No R/994/14) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 30 June 2014 adopted by the Director General of OLAF, acting as the appointing authority, in relation to the appointment of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice);

               —

               declare that, by virtue of the annulment of the two abovementioned decisions, the procedure for the selection of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice) is vitiated by illegality as of the time when the illegal act was found to have been committed;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay compensation — to be assessed on equitable principles — in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant connected with the loss of an opportunity, of at least EUR 10  000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-6/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Hansen v European Commission (Action for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/35

         Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Hansen v European Commission
   (Case T-6/09) (1)

   (Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2010/C 134/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bent Hansen (Aarslev, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders Mr Bent Hansen to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.