title: Case T-625/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (Interim measures — European Chemicals Agency — REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Decision imposing an administrative charge and an additional fee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/46

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA
   (Case T-625/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - European Chemicals Agency - REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Decision imposing an administrative charge and an additional fee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 144/64)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. (Grajewo, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: E. Maurage, J. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the granting of interim measures (i) suspending implementation of Decision No SME (2016) 2851 of 23 June 2016 which found that the applicant was not entitled to the fee reductions applicable to medium-sized enterprises and (ii) ordering the defendant to cancel the invoices issued on the basis of that decision, namely ECHA invoices No 10058238 and No 10058239 of 23 June 2016.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-193/03: Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/49
The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was              —     order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected                    damages for the harm suffered;
it in the contested decision.
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is there-
fore eligible for approval.                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission                      In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
violated the principle of legal certainty, the applicant's legit-          obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
imate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity.                 drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria                indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel             of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
was ordered or at the time the application for increase in                 Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
capacity was submitted to the Commission.                                  by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
                                                                           report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
                                                                           Staff Reports.
In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
                                                                           The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
                                                                           reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimi-
nation.
The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the
principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.
                                                                           Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria
                                                                           S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(1) OJ L 175, p. 27.                                                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-194/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/106)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                          (Case T-193/03)                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
                         (2003/C 184/105)                                  P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.
                    (Language of the Case: French)                         The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
                                                                           Fiorenzi S.r.l.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), represented by                      —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne                    Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
                                                                                2001-4
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Commu-
                                                                                nity trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);
—     annul the decision establishing the definitive staff report
      for 1997 to 1999;                                                    —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-271/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Rousse Industry AD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11 Rousse Industry AD v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/31

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2013 by Rousse Industry AD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11 Rousse Industry AD v European Commission
   (Case C-271/13 P)
   2013/C 207/52
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Rousse Industry AD (represented by: Al. Angelov and Sv. Panov, Advokati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11;

               —

               deliver final judgment and annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 13 July 2011 on the State aid (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to be reheard;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

                  First ground of appeal: Infringement of procedural provisions which adversely affects the appellant’s interests

                           (i)

                           In the grounds for its judgment the General Court did not address the main questions put to the parties by means of measures of organisation of procedure regarding the facts or the views of the parties in that regard.

                           (ii)

                           The above constitutes a serious procedural error, which falls within the scope of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the General Court was required to address all of the claims, complaints and arguments before it.

               2.

                  Second ground of appeal: Infringement of European Union law by the General Court

                           (i)

                           The General Court wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 1c of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) in that it assumed that new aid had been granted to Rousse Industry AD.

                           (ii)

                           The General Court delivered its judgment in infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since it wrongly assumed that the aid was incompatible with the internal market and infringed competition, and that the fact that the debt was not recovered by the State amounted to an advantage for the company in question.

                           (iii)

                           The General Court’s judgment does not comply with Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, since, in its assessment of the Commission’s private creditor criteria, the General Court adopted an approach which was erroneous from a legal point of view. In its decision, the Commission failed to support its conclusions regarding the private creditor criteria with any analysis and economic grounds, which is why the General Court had no grounds for endorsing the Commission’s arguments.

                           (iv)

                           The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 and Article 296 TFEU since, in its decision, the European Commission was required to state the amount of aid to be recovered, plus interest, and to calculate the interest in that regard in accordance with an appropriate rate determined by the Commission, which it did not do. This means that grounds were not provided for the Commission’s decision.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-346/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 289/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
(4) Does it follow from the grounds of the judgment in Case               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      C-39/94 SFEI v La Poste [1996] ECR I-3547, for the                  the Court should:
      purposes of the practical effect of Article 93(3), that the
      national court must annul both the bye-laws and the levy
      decisions imposed under those bye-laws and that that                —     declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a
      court must order the public body to repay the levies,                     system of bonuses and penalties having automatic and
      even if that is precluded by the rule developed in the                    compulsory repercussions on premium rates and apply-
                                                                                ing to all motor insurance contracts concluded on
      Netherlands case-law concerning the formal legal force of
      the levy decisions? Is it relevant in that regard that                    Luxembourg territory by natural persons, without any
      repayment of the levies does not in practice eliminate the                distinction being drawn between insurance companies
                                                                                based in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and insurance
      advantage which the field of activity and the individual
      undertakings in the branch obtained through the collec-                   undertakings operating there through a branch or by the
      tive advertising campaigns? Does Community law allow                      provision of services, contrary to the principle of freedom
      repayment of the earmarked levy not to take place, either                 to set premium rates and elimination of prior or system-
      wholly or in part, if, in the opinion of the national court,              atic controls on premium scales and contracts, as estab-
                                                                                lished by Articles 6(3), 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/
      the field of activity or the individual undertakings would
      be placed at an unfair advantage in connection with the                   EEC (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
      circumstance that the advantage obtained as a result of                   fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      the advertising campaigns cannot be returned in kind?
                                                                          —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
(5) In case of failure to notify an aid as laid down in
      Article 93(3), can a public body rely, in order to avoid an
      obligation to refund the aid, on the abovementioned rule
      of formal legal force of the levy decision if the person to
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      whom that decision was addressed was not aware, at the
      time of the adoption of that decision and during the
      period within which it could have been challenged in
      administrative proceedings, that the aid of which the levy          The Commission does not deny that it is open to Member
      forms part had not been notified? May an individual                 States to establish a scale taking into account the claims record
      assume in this connection that the authorities have                 of insured persons or even a uniform system of bonuses and
      fulfilled their obligations to notify aid under Article 93(3)       penalties, but it does oppose any scale or system accompanied
      of the EC Treaty?                                                   by tariff elements which has automatic and compulsory
                                                                          repercussions on premium rates, contrary to the principle of
                                                                          freedom to set rates. That is the position with the Luxembourg
                                                                          system as regards policyholders who are natural persons.
                                                                          Whilst the reference premium may be freely fixed by the
                                                                          parties to the contract of insurance, the Luxembourg rules
                                                                          attach to certain events affecting the life of the contract
                                                                          consequences having a compulsory and automatic effect on
                                                                          the amount of the premium rates, with the result that
                                                                          price competition does not come into play as regards the
                                                                          consequences of those events. Similarly, insurers operating on
                                                                          the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg do not have
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Com-                           the right to place the insured person, at the time of entering
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                     into the system, on another level of the scale or to choose
                      Duchy of Luxembourg                                 other methods involving the application of other criteria for
                                                                          reducing or increasing premiums or some other scale reflecting
                                                                          the accidents occurring over the course of a year or over some
                          (Case C-346/02)                                 other period of time.
                          (2002/C 289/23)                                 It is for the Member State imposing the restriction to show
                                                                          that the measure is justified by the public interest, objectively
                                                                          necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective
                                                                          pursued, and that it does not needlessly duplicate the rules
                                                                          applying in the Member State where the service provider is
                                                                          established. The Luxembourg Government has not shown this.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                       In any event, as regards consumer protection, there are other
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              systems which produce the same result without impinging on
ties on 30 September 2002 by the Commission of the                        rate-setting policy, in particular the organisation of a scheme
European Communities, represented by C. Tufvesson and                     involving the systematic publication of the rate-setting policies
J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in          pursued by the undertakings concerned in accordance with a
Luxembourg.                                                               common scale of accident claims. Moreover, it is not apparent
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 289/15
that the system has the influence which it is alleged to have on             Pleas in law and main arguments
the prevention of accidents; rather, it tends to encourage the
amicable settlement of small-scale damage claims.
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                             Case C-346/02 ( 2).
( 1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          (1 ) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives           of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)               direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives
     (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).                                               73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)
                                                                                (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).
                                                                             (2 ) See p. 14 of this Official Journal.
                                                                             Action brought on 28 September 2002 against the Italian
                                                                             Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                                                   (Case C-348/02)
                               Republic
                                                                                (2002/C 289/25)
                           (Case C-347/02)
                                                                             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Septem-
                           (2002/C 289/24)                                   ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
                                                                             Agents.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 Septem-
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier, acting as                           Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
                                                                                the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
                                                                                installations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             —      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—      declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a               Pleas in law and main arguments
       system of bonuses and penalties having automatic and
       compulsory repercussions on premium rates and apply-
       ing to all motor insurance contracts concluded on French              Article 249 EC, according to which a directive is to be binding,
       territory, without any distinction being drawn between                as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
       insurance companies based in France and insurance                     which it is addressed, means that Member States are obliged to
       undertakings operating there through a branch or by the               comply with time-limits for transposition laid down by
       provision of services, contrary to the principle of freedom           directives. Although the time-limit expired on 1 April 2001,
       to set premium rates and elimination of prior or system-              the Italian Republic had not enacted the provisions necessary
       atic controls on premium scales and contracts, as laid                to comply with the directive referred to in the Commission’s
       down by Articles 6(3), 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/                  claim.
       EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that directive;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 85 of 29.3.1999, p. 1.
—      order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-196/14: Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen — Germany) — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen — Germany) — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-196/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/28)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-529/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) — Difference of treatment on grounds of age — Civil service — Pension scheme — National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/10

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur
      (Case C-529/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Civil service - Pension scheme - National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18))
      (2015/C 107/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Georg Felber

         Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the crediting of periods of school education completed by a civil servant before the age of 18 for the purpose of the grant of pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim.

         (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case C-173/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/6

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-173/05)
   (2005/C 155/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and J. Hottiaux, of its Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force the ‘environmental protection tax’ on gas pipelines laid down by Article 6 of Sicilian Regional Law No 2 of 26 March 2002 (published in GURS (Official Journal of the Sicilian Region) Part I No 14 of 2002), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC, 25 EC, 26 EC and 133 EC and Articles 4 and 9 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria signed on 26 April 1976 and approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September 1978 (1);

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 6 of the Sicilian Regional Law in question infringes the principles of the Common Customs Tariff in so far as it establishes a tax having equivalent effect to an import duty (into the Community) or export duty (to other Member States) prohibited under the provisions of the Treaty and Community secondary law referred to above.
   From a formal point of view and according to the wording of the contested legislation, the taxable event is the ownership of the plant whereas the taxable amount is based on the volume, in cubic metres, of the pipelines. However, the Sicilian legislature took care to specify, first, in Article 6(3), that the taxable event is the ownership of the gas pipelines ‘containing the gas’; second, Article 6(4) provides that the taxable persons are the pipeline owners ‘which carry out at least one of the activities (transport, sales, purchasing)’ relating to gas. The Commission infers from this that the real objective of the Sicilian legislation is to tax the product transported (methane) and not the infrastructure (gas pipeline) as such.
   According to the Court's case-law on internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC, a tax charged on the method of transport according to the weight of the goods transported falls within the scope of the Community provisions on taxation of goods, since such a tax inevitably and immediately adds to the cost of the good transported, whether national or imported. It follows from the principle of interpretation set out in that case-law, which is readily applicable to taxes having equivalent effect to customs duty, that in the present case, the national tax, even if formally chargeable on the means of transport (gas pipelines) according to the volume of the good (methane) transported, in fact applies to the good itself and is inevitably and directly added to its cost.

      (1)  OJ 1978 L 263 of 27.9.1978.


title: Cases C-485/99 to C-492/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio (District Court, Brescia, Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 28 October 1999 in Case C-485/99, by orders of 30 October 1999 in Cases C-486/99, C-487/99, C-488/99 and C-492/99, and by orders of 10 November 1999 in Cases C-489/99, C-490/99 and C-491/99, Gottinghen SpA and Others v Ministero delle Finanze

text:
18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/7
    (b) a decision to transfer or use as security the assets listed      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
         in the annex to the Decree may be opposed — the                 Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio (District Court, Brescia,
         assets in the present case being the majority of the            Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 28 October
         capital of four subsidiaries of the parent company,             1999 in Case C-485/99, by orders of 30 October 1999 in
         namely Elf-Aquitaine Production, Elf-Antar France,              Cases C-486/99, C-487/99, C-488/99 and C-492/99, and by
         Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-Congo SA (Article 2(3) of the              orders of 10 November 1999 in Cases C-489/99, C-490/99
         Decree),                                                        and C-491/99, Gottinghen SpA and Others v Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
         and by failing to lay down sufficiently precise and
         objective criteria for approval of, or opposition to, the
                                                                                (Cases C-485/99 to C-492/99)
         operations referred to above, the French Republic has
         failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 43
         to 48 EC and Article 56 EC (formerly Articles 52 to 58                                     (2000/C 79/14)
         and 73b of the EC Treaty);
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                         Seconda Sezione Stralcio (District Court, Brescia, Second
                                                                         Chamber [Liquidations]), by order of 28 October 1999 in Case
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          C-485/99 (Gottinghen SpA, Tenuta Mombello Srl and Artea
                                                                         Srl v Ministero delle Finanze), by orders of 30 October 1999
Direct investment constitutes a form of movement of capital.             in Cases C-486/99 (Flos SpA, Flos Consulting Srl, Collebeato
In parallel with this, the acquisition by an investor from               Center, Light Shop Srl, Light Shop 2 Srl and Light Contract Srl
another Member State of the European Union of a controlling              v Ministero delle Finanze), C-487/99 (Petra Srl v Ministero
interest in a State undertaking is also covered by the provisions        delle Finanze), C-488/99 (Supercar Srl v Ministero delle
of the EC Treaty concerning the right of establishment.                  Finanze) and C-492/99 (Impresa Colleoni Giacomo Figli Srl v
National rules laying down general authorisation and veto                Ministero delle Finanze), and by orders of 10 November 1999
procedures may create, even where they are applicable without            in Cases C-489/99 (Immobiliare Flavia Srl in liquidation v
distinction, obstacles to the right of establishment and to the          Ministero delle Finanze), C-490/99 (Azzini SpA v Ministero
free movement of capital, inasmuch as they may impede, or                delle Finanze) and C-491/99 (Falegnameria Carminati di
render less attractive, the exercise of the fundamental freedoms         Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc [formerly Carminati Agosti-
guaranteed by the EC Treaty. Consequently, the French rules              no Srl] v Ministero delle Finanze), received at the Court
referred to in the form of order sought cannot be held to                Registry on 21 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling on
be compatible with Articles 56 EC and 43 EC (formerly                    the following questions:
Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty) unless they fall within
the exceptions referred to in Articles 46, 58 and 296 EC or              1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
are justified by overriding public-interest considerations and                1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
coupled with criteria which are objective and permanent and                   supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
which have been publicly promulgated, in such a way as to                     lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
restrict to an absolute minimum the discretion exercisable by                 69/335/EEC (1), inasmuch as it provides that the adminis-
the national authorities.                                                     trative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for registration
                                                                              of ‘other company documents’ for each of the years from
The clarification provided by the French Government concern-                  1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the sum of ITL 750 000
ing the case-law of the Cour Constitutionelle (Constitutional                 for public limited companies and partnerships limited by
Court) on the limits to the discretionary power enjoyed by                    shares and ITL 400 000 for private limited companies?
the Minister for Economic Affairs is vague as regards the
interpretation applicable to the concept of the national interest        2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
as opposed to the interests of foreign investors; consequently,               munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
it does not dispel the Commission’s concerns regarding the                    sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
compatibility of the rules in question with Community law.                    sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
As to the French authorities’ concern to prevent companies                    according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
from third countries from gaining control of the companies in                 that Law entered into force (2.5 % per annum) and not
question, the Commission points out the possibilities offered                 according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
by Article 57 EC as regards the maintenance of the restrictions               respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
existing in 1993 in respect of the movement of capital to or                  subsequently amended?
from third countries involving direct investment; France has
not, however, made use of that option. Lastly, the fact that the
French Government has made only limited use of the rules in
issue cannot justify the introduction of rules which are not in          (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                             indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition
conformity with Community law, even where those rules are                    1969 (11), p. 412).
applicable only to limited cases.


title: Case T-572/14: Action brought on 31 July 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/14

         Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)
   (Case T-572/14)
   2014/C 361/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 527/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 1 30  076

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations.


title: Case C-302/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 18 June 2010 — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 18 June 2010 — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
   (Case C-302/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/49
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Infopaq International A/S

      Respondent: Danske Dagblades Forening

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they constitute ‘an integral and essential part of a technological process’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive (1))?

               2.

               Can temporary acts of reproduction be an ‘integral and essential part of a technological process’ if they consist of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium?

               3.

               Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) include any form of use which does not require the copyright holder’s consent?

               4.

               Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) include the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles and subsequent processing of the reproduction, for use in the business’s summary writing, even where the rightholder has not given consent to those acts, if the other requirements in the provision are satisfied?
               Is it relevant to the answer to the question whether the 11 words are stored after the data capture process is terminated?

               5.

               What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have ‘independent economic significance’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) if the other requirements in the provision are satisfied?

               6.

               Can the user’s efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether the acts have independent economic significance (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)?

               7.

               Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles and the subsequent processing of the reproduction be regarded as constituting ‘certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation’ of the newspaper articles and ‘not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder’ (see Article 5(5)), if the requirements in Article 5(1) of the directive are satisfied?
               Is it relevant to the answer to the question whether the 11 words are stored after the data capture process is terminated?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-90/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/1072/EEC — VAT — Refund — Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 19 January 2006
   in Case C-90/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/1072/EEC - VAT - Refund - Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)
   (2006/C 60/20)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-90/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action for annulment under Article 226 EC, brought on 18 February 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eight Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005


title: Case C-164/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on  27 March 2006  — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006 — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3
   (Case C-164/06)
   (2006/C 154/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nissan Italia Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3
   Question referred
   Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net output value arising from regular engagement in independent activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on production activities)?

      (1)  OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.


               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/38

         (2006/C 165/76)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

      OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

      OJ C 96, 22.4.2006

      OJ C 86, 8.4.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-206/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/24

      Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
      (Case C-206/14) (1)

      (2015/C 016/37)
      Language of the case: Estonian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-386/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Airports — Groundhandling — Directive 96/67/EC)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-386/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Airports - Groundhandling - Directive 96/67/EC)
   (2005/C 217/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-386/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 September 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting measures contrary to Articles 16 and 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, in Paragraphs 8(2) and 9(3) of the Regulation on airport groundhandling services (Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungsdienste auf Flugplätzen) of 10 December 1997, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.


title: Case C-19/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb S.p.a.

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb S.p.a.
   (Case C-19/13)
   2013/C 86/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell’Interno

      Defendant: Fastweb S.p.a.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2d(4) of Directive 2007/66/EC (1) be construed as meaning that if, before awarding the contract directly to a specific economic operator, selected without prior publication of a contract notice, an awarding authority published the notice for voluntary ex ante transparency in the Official Journal of the European Union and waited at least 10 days before concluding the contract, the national court is — always and in any event — precluded from declaring the contract to be ineffective, even if it is established that there has been an infringement of the provisions permitting, subject to certain conditions, the award of a contract without a competitive tendering procedure?

               2.

               Is Article 2d(4) of Directive 2007/66/EC — if interpreted as making it impossible to declare a contract ineffective, in accordance with national law (Article 122 of the Code of administrative procedure), even though the national court has established an infringement of the provisions permitting, subject to certain conditions, the award of a contract without a competitive tendering procedure — compatible with the principles of equality of the parties, of non-discrimination and of protecting competition, and also of guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).


title: Case C-436/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2012 by Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/16

         Appeal brought on 28 September 2012 by Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v Commission
   (Case C-436/12 P)
   2012/C 379/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Vegliantini, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA and Italian Republic v European Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by VEOLIA for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Comitato Venezia vuole vivere [Joined Cases C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P and C-76/09 P], with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as to the conditions set out in Article 87(1) EC; insufficient, incorrect and, in any event, contradictory reasoning.


title: Case T-270/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Settlement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) and Others v Commission
   (Case T-270/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   (2016/C 136/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd (Basle, Switzerland), Panalpina Management AG (Basle), Panalpina China Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis, T. Grimmer and B. Smith, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Meessen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and by C. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina China Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-632/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Timsas Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Timsas Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission
   (Case C-632/11 P)
   2012/C 118/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Timsas Srl (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Pinna, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 in so far as it rejects the appellant’s complaint alleging failure to state reasons with regard to the assessment of the incentive effect of the aid at issue;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’ C/104 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9);

               —

               the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal is flawed on the basis that it distorts the pleas in law relied on in the application; error of law and illogical and inconsistent reasoning. In particular, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to give reasons, even implicitly, for rejecting the complaint alleging manifest error on the part of the Commission in its assessment of the incentive effect of the aid. The General Court stated that ‘it is necessary … only to consider whether the applicants have demonstrated, in the present case, the existence of circumstances such as to ensure the incentive effect of the scheme at issue, even where no application had been submitted before work had commenced on the projects in question’, However, it did not state that the applicants had not demonstrated this and nor did it give any reason on the basis of which it would be possible to understand the ground for such a (wholly implicit) belief.
   The statement at paragraph 227 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission was not under any obligation to assess the particular circumstances of the individual beneficiaries is insufficient and contradictory. It is impossible to understand how the applicants could substantiate their argument that there was an incentive effect other than by setting out their own individual circumstances: the Commission and the General Court, when the case was brought before it, should have devised a uniform principle enabling an objective assessment of the position of each person represented, which could be regarded as particular or specific to that person only in relation to specific facts, but which nevertheless lends itself to a general and abstract statement.
   Lastly, both the Commission in the contested decision and the General Court in the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the appellant’s intentions, attributing to it the aim of contriving to render a decision which referred to a general scheme one that concerned it individually and, as a result of that misunderstanding, incorrectly failed to consider the impact which the factors brought to their attention by the appellant could have had on the assessment of the scope of the aid scheme in general terms.


title: Case F-38/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/58

      Action brought on 28 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament
      (Case F-38/16)
      (2016/C 364/76)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the staff report for the year 2014, as finalised by the decision of 20 October 2015 and of the decision awarding merit points for the year 2014 and the decision not to promote in respect of 2015.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

                  —

                  Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-236/10: Order of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Asociación Española de Banca v European Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid — Association — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/28

         Order of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Asociación Española de Banca v European Commission
   (Case T-236/10) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid - Association - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 151/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación Española de Banca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(1) and, alternatively, Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Asociación Española de Banca is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2005 in Case T-67/04: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SPA-FINDERS — Earlier national word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/35

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 May 2005
   in Case T-67/04: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SPA-FINDERS - Earlier national word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 182/66)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-67/04: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd, established in New York (United States) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2003 (Case R 131/2003-1), relating to the opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-225/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe (France) lodged on 8 May 2014  — Facet SA v Jean Henri

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe (France) lodged on 8 May 2014 — Facet SA v Jean Henri
   (Case C-225/14)
   2014/C 223/13
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Dieppe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Facet SA

      Defendant: Jean Henri

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) prohibit the existence and application of standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that the creditor’s obligations have been fulfilled?

               2.

               Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?

      (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)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-153/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co. KG v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Set-aside entitlements — Article 54(6) — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 50(4) — Declaration of entire area available for the purposes of activating set-aside entitlements — Article 51(1) — Sanction)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co. KG v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   (Case C-153/09) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Set-aside entitlements - Article 54(6) - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 50(4) - Declaration of entire area available for the purposes of activating set-aside entitlements - Article 51(1) - Sanction)
   2011/C 30/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 54 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Articles 50 and 51 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2003 L 141, p. 18) — Agricultural aid — Obligation on the farmer to claim set-aside entitlements before any other entitlement in order to prevent overdeclaration — Infringement of that obligation by a farmer who, after the setting aside of an area, does not have any arable land — Sanctions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 54(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer may apply for aid under the payment entitlements at his disposal, including in conjunction with areas that are not eligible for set-aside, only if he has first activated all of his set-aside entitlements.

               2.

               Article 51 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 659/2006 of 27 April 2006, read in conjunction with Article 50(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the principle of legal certainty, the sanction set out in Article 51(1) is not applicable to a farmer who, while having failed to activate all of his set-aside entitlements, on the ground that he did not have a sufficient number of hectares eligible for set-aside, activated payment entitlements based on permanent pasture.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-130/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Coesia v EUIPO (Depiction of a circular shape formed by two oblique, symmetrical red lines)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Coesia v EUIPO (Depiction of a circular shape formed by two oblique, symmetrical red lines)
   (Case T-130/16)
   (2016/C 165/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Depiction of a circular shape formed by two oblique, symmetrical red lines) — Application for registration No 13 681 151

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 1933/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-641/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France
   (Case C-641/16)
   (2017/C 070/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

      Defendant: Expert France

      Question referred

   Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court which opened insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking to establish liability by which the assignee of part of a business acquired in the course of those insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as the exclusive distributor or the goods manufactured by the debtor?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


title: Case C-158/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância, Faro, by order of that court of 11 March 1999, in the case of Corticeira Amorim - Algarve Lda. and Fazenda Pública

text:
C 188/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3.7.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should                                   Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                               the European Communities against the Italian Republic
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning                                             (Case C-159/99)
     the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the
     charging of infrastructure fees (1), or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has failed to                                      (1999/C 188/50)
     fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2) order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
                                                                             1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal Service, acting as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
directive. That period expired on 27 June 1997 without Ireland               — Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                       obligations under Community Law
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                                •   by laying down rules permitting the capture and
(1) OJ L 143, 27.06.95, p. 75.                                                        keeping of three species (passer italiae, passer mon-
                                                                                tanus and sturnus vulgaris), contrary to Articles 5 and
                                                                                7 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and Annex II
                                                                                thereto, and by providing that those rules are to apply
                                                                                by way of a general and permanent derogation, which
                                                                                is contrary to Article 9 of that Directive and engenders
                                                                                an unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty; and
                                                                                •   by laying down rules concerning the conditions and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribut-                            detailed rules for the application of the derogation from
ário de 1a Instância, Faro, by order of that court of                                the prohibitions laid down by Directive 79/409/EEC
11 March 1999, in the case of Corticeira Amorim-Algarve                               which do not fully comply with the requirements
                      Lda. and Fazenda Pública                                       under Article 9 thereof, in particular as regards the
                                                                                reasons for derogation, listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (b);
                           (Case C-158/99)
                                                                             — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-
                           (1999/C 188/49)                                        ings.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Tributärio                  Pleas in law and main arguments
de 1a Instância, Faro, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Corticeira Amorim-Algarve Lda. v Fazenda Pública, on the
following question:
                                                                             The first infrinqement
Is Article 2 of the Schedule of Land Registry Fees, in requiring
to be added to the fixed fee under Article 1 thereof the variable            The Commission maintains that the rules laid down by
fee based on value provided for therein, contrary to Article 12              Articles 4(4) and 5(2) of Law No 157/92, which authorise the
of Directive 69/335, (1) in so far as it is prohibited, under the            capture and keeping of three protected species (passer italiae,
latter article, to levy a charge whose amount is calculated on               passer montanus and sturnus vulgaris) are manifestly contrary
the basis not of the cost of the individual service but of the               to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 79/409 and Annex II thereto,
overall financing and investment costs of the body responsible               and that Article 3 of the DPCM (2) of 27 September 1997,
for providing the service in question?                                       according to which those rules may be justified under the
                                                                             derogation provided for in Article 9 of the Directive, does not
                                                                             remedy that infringement because the ensuing legal situation
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the            is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the
    raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).       requirement that the Directive be clearly transposed into
                                                                             national law, and because the provision at issue introduces
                                                                             unacceptable arrangements for general and permanent dero-
                                                                             gation from the prohibitions laid down in the Directive.


title: Case C-364/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2015 in Case T-360/12: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/14

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2015 in Case T-360/12: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG
   (Case C-364/15 P)
   (2015/C 414/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of April 21, 2015, in Case T-360/12, served upon the Appellant on April 29, 2015;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings;

               —

               Order Nanu-Nana to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By means of the present appeal Louis Vuitton Malletier (hereafter referred to as ‘Louis Vuitton’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice annul the decision of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of April 21, 2015, in Case T-360/12 (the ‘judgment under appeal’), whereby the General Court dismissed Louis Vuitton application against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of May 16, 2012, in Case R 1854/2011-1, which had declared Community trademark registration No. 658751 (figurative) invalid in its entirety, for lack of distinctive character.

               2.

               The present appeal is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the provision of Article 7(i)(b) CTM Regulation (1) is applicable to the contested trademark.

               3.

               In upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision that had declared the contested trademark invalid for not being inherently distinctive the General Court infringed the rules concerning the burden of proof in invalidity proceedings.

               4.

               In particular, the Appellant maintains that to comply with the principles on the presumption of validity enjoyed by registered Community trademarks and the apportion of the burden of proof in invalidity actions, the General Court should have reversed the challenged decision, on the basis that Nanu-Nana had not met its burden, as it had not been able to demonstrate what the norm and customs of the relevant sector were at the date of filing of the contested trademark and therefore that the contested trademark did not depart significantly from them.

               5.

               In light of the above the Appellant requests that the Court of Justice annul the judgment under appeal and order both the OHIM and Nanu-Nana to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-487/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — UE v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/19

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — UE v Commission
   (Case T-487/17)
   (2017/C 357/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision dated 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests dated 14 October 2013;

               —

               if needed, annul the European Commission’s decision dated 26 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 5 January 2017;

               —

               compensate the applicant for the moral and material prejudiced suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 120 000 euro (moral harm), 748 800 (loss of earnings), and 576 000 euro (loss of pension);

               —

               compensate the applicant for the harm caused by the course and the outcome of the inquiry on the issue of harassment, evaluated at the sum of 50 000 euro;

               —

               reimburse the applicant’s incurred costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of sound administration, violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, violation of the right to be heard and violation of the adversarial principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, factual errors and a violation of Article 35, second sentence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-373/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/36

         Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
   (Case T-373/14)
   2014/C 261/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

               —

               join the present proceedings with the case T-156/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.


title: Case C-292/13 P: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2014  — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2014 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.
   (Case C-292/13 P) (1)

   2014/C 261/31
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-321/00: Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Sinaga, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/50                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
Action brought on 30 October 2000 by Sinaga, Sociedade                          the forecast made in Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 are
de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA, against the Com-                       unfair and unreasonable.
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000
                          (Case T-321/00)                                     establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/01 for the
                                                                              Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council
                          (2000/C 335/95)                                     Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 2000
                                                                              L 167, p. 6).
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
An action against was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 2000
by Sinaga, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA,             Action brought on 13 October 2000 by Cecilio Alonso de
whose registered office is at 75 Rua de Lisboa, Ponta Delgada,            Miguel and 20 Others against Commission of the Euro-
Azores, represented by Dr Mário Marques Mendes, with an                                          pean Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May, 398 Route d’Esch, Luxembourg.                                                                  (Case T-322/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (2000/C 335/96)
—     find the application admissible;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     annul that part of Regulation No 1481/2000 (1) which                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      reads ‘objective data provided by the Portuguese ...                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      authorities in line with local market requirements’ and             European Communities on 13 October 2000 by Cecilio Alon-
      the Annex thereto in so far as it establishes the sugar             so de Miguel and 20 Others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis et
      forecast supply balance for the Azores and hold that                Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      earlier legislation continues to produce its effects;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.                                                      —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
                                                                                request submitted by the applicants for the repayment of
                                                                                the full amount paid by way of compliance with Spanish
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 court orders, subject to deductions of entitlement to
                                                                                pension rights, pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
—     Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                                the Staff Regulations and of the interest calculated, in
      Article 253 EC) and Council Decision No 1999/468/EC
                                                                                accordance with the general implementing provisions, at
      of 28 June 1999: breach of an essential procedural
                                                                                the rate of 3,5 % per annum solely in respect of the
      requirement
                                                                                periods for which the rights credited have been reassessed;
—     Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      Article 253 EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent
      statement of reasons
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Articles 2, 3, and 8 of Council Regulation
      (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply               In support of their application, the applicants allege:
      balance does not take into account traditional trade flows
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations;
—     Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after
      amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account                 —     infringement of Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff
      of the said provision when interpreting and applying                      Regulations and of Article 4(2) of the general
      legislative provisions applicable to the extremely remote                 implementing provisions;
      areas                                                               —     unjust enrichment of the Communities, to the detriment
                                                                                of the applicants;
—     Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 7(1) EC): the Commission has exercised its execu-           —     absence of a legal basis; and
      tive powers in a manifestly abusive and unlawful manner
                                                                          —     breach of the general legal principle according to which
—     Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of                costs shall follow the event.