title: Case C-391/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di Lecce — Sezione penale by order of that Court of 7 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Sergio Adelchi

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 19/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                       company law offences concerning the infringement of the
Hamburg by order of that Court of 16 October 2002 in                          obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of
the case of Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft                           public and accurate information on companies, lays
                 e. G. against Hauptzollamt Kiel                              down a sanctionative system which in the specific
                                                                              instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness,
                                                                              proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions
                          (Case C-389/02)
                                                                              imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld?
                           (2003/C 19/20)
                                                                         2.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-                       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                              fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
burg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 16 October 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 5 November 2002, for a preliminary                   by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                              as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
ruling in the case of Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft
e. G. against Hauptzollamt Kiel on the following question:                    Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                              offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                                                                              disclosure and the provisions of accurate information on
Does sailing in Community waters in craft for other than                      certain company documents (including the balance sheet
private non-commercial purposes constitute navigation within                  and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure
the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive            of false company accounts or the failure to provide
92/81 (1)?                                                                    information result in a distortion of the financial results
                                                                              for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which
                                                                              does not exceed a certain percentage threshold?
( 1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.
                                                                         3.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
                                                                              of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
                                                                              (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                              fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                    by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                              as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
di Lecce — Sezione penale by order of that Court of
7 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Sergio                     Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                              offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                               Adelchi
                                                                              disclosure and the provision of accurate information
                                                                              where statements are made which, although aimed at
                          (Case C-391/02)                                     deceiving members or the public with a view to securing
                                                                              an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated
                                                                              valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual
                           (2003/C 19/21)
                                                                              values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello di                 4.   Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must
Lecce — Sezione penale (Court of Appeal, Lecce, Criminal                      those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g) of the
division) of 7 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on                EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
8 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                     (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
proceedings against Sergio Adelchi on the following questions:                fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
                                                                              by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
1.    With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt                as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
      ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established               Member State which does not make it a punishable
      by the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/                   offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
      EEC (1) and Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must the directives              disclosure and the provision of accurate information
      themselves and in particular the combined provisions of                 where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions
      Article 44(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of            and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not
      the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2),            give a true and fair view of the company’s assets and
      (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC),             liabilities and financial position do not distort ‘to an
      as consolidated by Directive 83/349 ( 3) and Directive 90/              appreciable extent’ the company’s assets, liabilities and
      605 ( 4), be interpreted as meaning that that legislation               financial position (even though it is for the national
      precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending                    legislature to define the concept of ‘appreciable distor-
      the system of penalties already in force in respect of                  tion’?
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/12                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
5.     Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
       of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive      represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, of its
       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
       fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
       by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
       as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
       Member State which, in response to an infringement by                The Commission claims that the Court should:
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members            a)    declare that, as a result of the award by the Dimosia
       and third parties’, allows only members and creditors to                   Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (DEI) of work for the construction
       seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third                      of a conveyor system at the steam-generated electricity
       parties from any general and effective protection?                         station at Megalopolis by a procedure of negotiation
                                                                                without a competition first being called, the Hellenic
6.     Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)                 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
       of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive            Directive 93/38/EEC ( 1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating
       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the                the procurement procedures of entities operating in the
       fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated                   water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
       by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted                  and, in particular, under Article 20 et seq. of the
       as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a                      directive;
       Member State which, in response to the infringement by
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on                 b)    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members
       and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and
       a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,
       whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment
       upon complaint being made, together with more serious
       and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements        Pleas in law and main arguments
       occasioning loss to members and creditors?
( 1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-
     ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests    Directive 93/38 governs the choice of procurement procedures
     of members and others, are required by Member States of                in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
     companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of                and applies to contracts whose estimated value is not less than
     Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards        EUR 5 000 000.
     equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
     Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
( 2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
     Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
     types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11).                      According to the Commission, the contract at issue, by reason
( 3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on          of its value and type, is covered by the directive. Consequently,
     the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ      the contracting entity (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (DEI);
     L 193, 18.07.1983, p. 1).                                              the State Electricity Undertaking) had to follow the procedures
( 4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending               under Article 20(1) of the directive and call a competition in
     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/          accordance with Article 21 of the directive. However, the
     EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those
                                                                            contract was not put out to tender but was awarded following
     Directives (OJ L 317, 16.11.1990, p. 60).
                                                                            private negotiation.
                                                                            The Commission maintains that in the present case neither
                                                                            Article 20(2)(c) of the directive (technical or artistic reasons
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                         rendering it absolutely essential to place the contract with a
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                     particular contractor) nor Article 20(2)(d) (extreme urgency
                                    lic                                     brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting
                                                                            entity) is applicable.
                            (Case C-394/02)
                             (2003/C 19/22)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 November


title: Case T-235/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Codess Sociale and Others v Commission
   (Case T-235/00) (1)

   2011/C 347/78
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0008

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97)

Official Journal C 020 , 22/01/1998 P. 0018 - 0018

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97) (98/C 20/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 October 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of TV 1000 Sverige v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the following questions.1. Does Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC introduce a common standard for what 'might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` or is it left up to each individual EU and EFTA country to determine the degree of pornography, violence, etc., which is to be deemed to have the damaging effects referred to in Article 22?2. In the event that Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC establishes a common standard for the European Economic Area: is the Swedish norm which accepts scenes shot in close-ups with masturbation, licking and sucking of sexual organs, intercourse, dwelling on ejaculation in the mouths of women and group sex an expression of the common norm in Article 22 which is to apply for the European Economic Area?3. Can the provision in Article 22(I) second sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC concerning the choice of broadcast time and technical measures apply to circumstances which are to be subsumed under Article 22(I) first sentence?4. If a film is deemed to be contrary to Article 22(I) first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, is Article 2(2)(a) a further impediment to the temporary interruption of further broadcast of television broadcasts under Article 2(2)?5. Are repeated acts contrary to Article 22 of the TV Directive to be subsumed under Article 2(2)(a) or


title: Case C-477/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/17
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                    by order of that court dated 10 November 2003, in the
                        Republic of Germany                                          case of Celtec Ltd against Astley and others
                           (Case C-477/03)                                                          (Case C-478/03)
                            (2004/C 21/31)                                                           (2004/C 21/32)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ties on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the                          European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt and                   dated 10 November 2003, which was received at the Court
Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the case of Celtec Ltd and Astley and others on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Are the words ‘the transferor’s rights and obligations
1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     arising from a contract of employment or from an
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     employment relationship existing on the date of a
      Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of                     transfer’ in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                           of 14 February 1977 on the approximation ofthe laws
      Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Com-                        of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
      munity’s railways (1), or by failing to inform the Com-                    employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
      mission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has                       businesses or parts of businesses (1) to be interpreted as
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.                     meaning that there is a particular point in time at which
                                                                                the transfer of the undertaking or part thereof is deemed
2.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     to have been completed and the transfer of rights and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     obligations pursuant to Article 3(1) is effected?
      Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                     2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, how is that particular
      Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertak-                   point in time to be identified?
      ings (2), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           3.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘no’, how are the words ‘on
      obligations under that directive.
                                                                                the date of a transfer’ in Article 3(1) to be interpreted?
3.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               (1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
      Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
      railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges
      for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certifi-
      cation (3), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive.
4.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case C-485/03)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 21/33)
15 March 2003.
(1) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(2) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
(3) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.                                                   vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-42/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie
   (Case C-42/14)
   2014/C 135/21
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Minister Finansów

      Respondent on a point of law: Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 14(1), Article 15(1) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that there are supplies by the landlord of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal services to the tenant of the premises directly using those goods and services, which are supplied to those premises by specialist third persons, in a situation where one of the parties to the agreements for the supply of those goods and services is the landlord, who simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant who actually uses them?

               (2)

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the costs of electricity, heat, water and refuse disposal used by the tenant of the premises increase, as regards the landlord, the taxable amount (rent), as referred to in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, resulting from the supply of the rental service, or do the supplies of goods and services in question constitute supplies separate from the rental service?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-2/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — BW v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary official — Not established at the end of the probationary period — Statement of reasons on which the decision to dismiss a probationary official is based — Rights of the defence)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — BW v Commission
   (Case F-2/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary official - Not established at the end of the probationary period - Statement of reasons on which the decision to dismiss a probationary official is based - Rights of the defence)
   2013/C 38/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, S. Bonté and A. Blot, lawyers, subsequently by H. Soland, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and P. Pecho, Agents, subsequently by J. Baquero Cruz, Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss suffered as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BW to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 36.


title: Case F-37/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Doyle v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/26

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Doyle v Europol
   (Case F-37/09)
   2009/C 167/51
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-256/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 28 May 2014  — Lisboagás GDL, Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 28 May 2014 — Lisboagás GDL, Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-256/14)
   2014/C 303/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lisboagás GDL, Sociedade Distribuidora de Gás Natural de Lisboa SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law preclude the assessment of VAT, when a private undertaking providing infrastructures for the distribution of natural gas passes on to an undertaking acquiring its services, without including any additional amount, the amounts relating to land use taxes paid to the municipalities in which the pipes comprising those infrastructures are located?

               2.

               Given that local authorities assess land use taxes in the exercise of their public powers, without including VAT, does EU law preclude the assessment of VAT when the amounts relating to those taxes paid by a private undertaking providing infrastructures for the distribution of natural gas are passed on to an undertaking acquiring its services?


title: Case T-114/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-43/10 Cerafogli v ECB

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/42

         Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-43/10 Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case T-114/13 P)
   2013/C 114/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Consequently:

                           —

                           annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 24 November 2009 rejecting the claims of the appellant of discrimination and attempts to her dignity because of the behaviour of her management and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision dated 24 March 2010 rejecting the special appeal;

                           —

                           give the appellant the benefit of her requests as stated in her administrative review and more in particular:

                           —

                           stop any form of discrimination and mobbing against the applicant be it in verbal acts and in working assignments and arrangements;

                           —

                           receive the written withdrawal by Mr G. of his offensive and threatening statements;

                           —

                           in any case, order the compensation of the moral and material prejudice suffered evaluated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 EUR (moral prejudice) and at 15 000 EUR (material prejudice);

                           —

                           order that the ECB provides the full internal administrative inquiry report with all its annexes, including the minutes of the hearings. Furthermore, that the ECB provides also all communication between the inquiry panel and/or lead inquirer and the Executive Board and/or the ECB President;

                           —

                           order the summoning of the previous Social Counselor of the defendant as a witness.

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, dénaturation of the file, violation of the principle of proportionality, violation of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1) and violation of the right to an effective legal remedy. In this respect, the appellant states that the EU Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) erred in law and infringed her rights of defence by considering that she may not rely on the ECB’s obligation to observe the rights of the defence. Indeed, the decision rejecting her request for assistance significantly affected the appellant’s interests and, in addition, the procedure was ‘initiated’ against the appellant in the meaning specified by the case law (Commission v Lisrestal). Given the failure to allow the appellant to take cognizance of the file, the appellant was also unable to defend her rights with regard to the file in satisfactory conditions before the European judicature, with the result that her right to an effective legal remedy has also been infringed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of the right to an effective legal remedy and of the duty of the judge to state reasons. In this respect, the appellant asked the CST to order the ECB to produce, pursuant to Article 55 of the CST Rules of Procedure, the file of the inquiry including the annexes to the inquiry report and the minutes of the hearings. The challenged judgment refused to take these measures of organization of the procedure in violation of the appellant’s rights to an effective legal remedy and to the duty of the judge to state reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the mandate of the panel and of the duty of assistance, as the findings of both reviews (i.e. the inquiry and the CST) is very limited since it proved only that there were colleagues who reported the negative statements on the appellant and her work. But this missed the scope of her request of assistance — and therefore of the mandate of the panel — notably to assess the findings on the negative comments on her. Furthermore, the contested judgment ignores the unfairness of this situation, notably that the appellant was not informed of the reported negative views, thus was put in a helpless situation, whereby her reputation was damaged, and she could not defend herself.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6(5) of the Administrative Circular 1/2006 of the Executive Board of the ECB of 21 March 2006 on internal administrative inquiries as the challenged judgment wrongly considered that the communication of the inquiry report together with the whole file would only be in the communication to the person conducting the inquiry.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the manifest error of assessment and of the duty of the judge to state reasons, as the definition of the manifest error of assessment given by the challenged judgment is not compliant with the case law of the General Court. Also, the contested judgment violated its control of the manifest error.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)


title: Case T-421/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Qualitest v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Qualitest v Council
   (Case T-421/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 26/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Qualitest FZE:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299 as regards Qualitest until the annulment of Implementing Regulation No 503/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Qualitest;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-130/05: Action brought on 14 March 2005 by Dominique Albert-Bousquet and 142 Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/31

         Action brought on 14 March 2005 by Dominique Albert-Bousquet and 142 Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-130/05)
   (2005/C 132/57)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 March 2005 by Dominique Albert-Bousquet, residing in Brussels, and 142 other officials, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities, in so far as those decisions determine their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in this case, who were all recruited after 1 May 2004 as successful candidates in competitions for which notices had been published before that date, object to the alleged discrimination arising from the fact that their conditions of classification, in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, are different from those of the successful candidates in the same competitions who were recruited before that amendment of the Staff Regulations.
   In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

               —

               breach of the principle of equal treatment,

               —

               infringement of Articles 31(1) and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations,

               —

               infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations,

               —

               breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

         The applicants submit in that regard that it is apparent from Community case-law that the successful candidates in a competition are in a comparable situation and must therefore be accorded the same treatment. In addition, they submitted their applications with a view to being recruited to fill one of the vacant posts referred to in the respective notices of the competitions which they passed. They were therefore entitled to foster reasonable expectations of being recruited to the posts and at the grades specified in the notices of the competitions which they passed.


title: Case C-264/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — No implementation of EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/26

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, SA
   (Case C-264/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers - No implementation of EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))
   2014/C 315/39
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

      Defendant: Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, SA

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal), made by decision of 22 May 2012 (Case C-264/12).

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-431/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of evidence)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-431/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of evidence))
   (2016/C 156/11)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, R. Sauer and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-481/14: Action brought on 20 June 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/10

         Action brought on 20 June 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIT
   (Case T-481/14)
   2014/C 351/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Siouti and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s award decision regarding the call for tender communicated to the applicant in its letter of 11 April 2014 and all further related decisions of the defendant, including the decision to award the contract to the winning tenderer (which has not been communicated to the applicants);

               —

               annul the decision of the Director of the EIT of 25 April 2014, refusing to disclose the composition of the Evaluation Committee;

               —

               order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract in the context of the call for tender, reaching the amount of 1 58  430,40 euros;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant mixed the selection and award criteria whereby it infringed Article 110 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Delegated Regulation (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 105 and 113 of the Financial Regulation and Article 138 of the Delegated Regulation as the defendant used unknown criteria, which were not included in the Tender Specifications, when evaluating the tenders and infringed its obligation to specify the award criteria and their relative weighting or, where appropriate, the decreasing order of importance. The applicants further submit that the defendant relied on a discrete, discontinuous marking system, causing distortions and errors in the evaluation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2(3) and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001 (3) by refusing to disclose the composition of the Evaluation Committee, which would have allowed for the applicants to verify the absence of conflict of interests.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-243/16: Action brought on 18 May 2016 – Freddo v EUIPO – Freddo Freddo (Freggo)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/48

         Action brought on 18 May 2016 – Freddo v EUIPO – Freddo Freddo (Freggo)
   (Case T-243/16)
   (2016/C 243/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Freddo SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, K. Gilbert, G. Lodge, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Freddo Freddo, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Freggo’ – Application for registration No 7 606 064

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 in Case R 919/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO (and if it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the Office) to pay its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-539/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Court of Auditors’ declared intention to carry out audits in a Member State — Member State’s objection — Powers of the Court of Auditors — Article 248 EC — Audit of the cooperation of the national administrative authorities in the field of value added tax — Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 — Community revenue — Own resources accruing from value added tax)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-539/09) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Court of Auditors’ declared intention to carry out audits in a Member State - Member State’s objection - Powers of the Court of Auditors - Article 248 EC - Audit of the cooperation of the national administrative authorities in the field of value added tax - Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 - Community revenue - Own resources accruing from value added tax)
      (2012/C 25/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Blaschke and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

         Intervening parties in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents), Court of Auditors of the European Union, (represented initially by R. Crowe, and subsequently by T. Kennedy and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10 EC and Article 248(1), (2) and (3) EC, and of Article 140(2) and Article 142(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) — Refusal to allow the Court of Auditors to carry out checks in Germany concerning administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax — Scope of the Court of Auditors’ audit powers

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by objecting to the conduct by the Court of Auditors of the European Union of audits in Germany concerning administrative cooperation under Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and the provisions for its implementation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 248(1) to (3) EC;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors of the European Union to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-5/10: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2011 — Commission v Earthscan

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Order of the General Court of 16 February 2011 — Commission v Earthscan
   (Case T-5/10) (1)

   2011/C 113/41
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-17/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Société Générale SA; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Société Générale SA; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-17/14)
   2014/C 129/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Société Générale SA

      Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State be extended to the corporation tax against which the dividend tax is set off in the case of residents?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, should account be taken, in making that comparison, of all the costs which, in an economic sense, are connected with the shares from which the dividend arises?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, should account then be taken of a possible write-off of a bought dividend and of a possible financing burden resulting from ownership of the shares concerned?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned contains a provision in that regard, and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question it has the result that the Netherlands tax burden for a non-resident is not heavier than that for a resident? In the case of inadequate compensation in the year in which the dividends are received, is it relevant, in the assessment of that neutralisation, that there is the possibility of carrying forward the deficit and of utilising the set-off in subsequent years?


title: Case T-378/02: Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 55/30                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Technische
                                                                              Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicants, the main producers of the cow-milk feta
produced in Germany, seek the annulment of Commission                                                  (Case T-378/02)
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 55/81)
The applicants submit first of all that the information in                                      (Language of the case: German)
Greece’s notification of 17 January 1995 does not satisfy the
formal requirements for the inclusion of ‘Feta’ in the list of
protected designations of origin. That is so because Greece’s
application was out of time, precluding the Commission from                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
registering ‘Feta’ under the shortened procedure pursuant to                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ( 2). Furthermore, it               European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Technische
is not possible for the name ‘Feta’ to be protected under                     Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, whose registered office is in
Article 17 since Greece did not introduce protection of feta at               Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and C. Arhold,
national level until 11 January 1994, that is to say almost six               Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
months after Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 entered into force.
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants further submit that the contested regulation                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2002,
does not comply in the slightest with the grounds of the                            C(2002) 2147 endg., on State aid by Germany in favour
decision of the Court of Justice of 16 March 1999 (3), according                    of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
to which the Commission must accord decisive importance to
the markets which, at the time of Greece’s application,                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
had already lawfully developed in the Member States and
throughout the world. Moreover, the product ‘feta’ is not
capable of being protected since it is not a protected desig-
nation of origin but rather a generic name. Under Article 3(1)                Pleas in law and main arguments
of Regulation No 2081/92 generic names cannot be registered.
Furthermore, feta is a product which originates not just from
Greece, but from the Mediterranean and Balkan region. Feta                    The applicant acquired four glass production lines from
has been produced and consumed in considerable quantities                     Ilmenauer Glaswerke GmbH, in liquidation, an undertaking of
for decades in six Member States. In addition, the burden rests               the German Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbedingte Son-
with Greece to prove that feta is not a generic name; it has not              deraufgaben (Federal Institution for Special Tasks arising from
adduced evidence discharging this burden.                                     Unification) (‘BvS’). In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                              classified two measures by Germany in connection with that
                                                                              acquisition as State aid: There was a guarantee in favour of BvS
                                                                              for a remaining purchase price balance of DEM 1,8 million.
The applicants also argue that the requirements of Articles 2                 BvS had declared itself willing to replace that guarantee by a
and 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 are not met. Feta is not a                     land charge. In addition, Thüringer Aufbaubank (Thüringen
traditional geographic name. The name ‘feta’ comes from                       Bank for Reconstruction) (‘TAB’) had granted the applicant a
Italian and means ‘slice’, and was a generic name before the                  loan of DEM 2,0 million. The Commission held these measures
adoption of Regulation No 2081/92 and thus allowed to be                      incompatible with the common market.
used in intra-Community trade between Member States. Finally
the registration of ‘Feta’ infringes the Community-law funda-
mental rights to protection of property and of exercise of a                  The applicant argues that the loan by TAB to the applicant
profession, nor is the injury to property justified by Article 30             was not an aid, because it corresponded to market conditions,
EC.                                                                           was covered by a general aid regulation approved by the
                                                                              Commission, and served to compensate for a claim for
                                                                              damages of the applicant against the Land Thüringen which
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
                                                                              was justified from the standpoint of State liability. The
     amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard             replacement of the guarantee in respect of the residual
     to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10).                               purchase price for three production lines by a land charge was
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the               also no aid.
     protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
     for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).
( 3) Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/        The applicant further argues that the Commission has not
     96 and C-299/96 Denmark and Others v Commission [1999]                   demonstrated that the measures could affect trade between
     ECR I-1541.                                                              Member States. Furthermore, refusal of authorisation under
                                                                              Article 87(3)(c) EC was based on obvious errors of assessment
                                                                              and reasoning. The Commission refused to take important
                                                                              facts into account in the considerations which it took as the
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/31
basis for its assessment. The main competitor would obtain a                 European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Confédé-
monopoly position if the applicant were to disappear. In                     ration générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des
examining the applicant’s prospects of profitability, the Com-               industriels de roquefort, established in Millau (France), rep-
mission overlooked the commitment of a private investor, the                 resented by Michel-Jean Jacquot and Olivier Prost, lawyers.
applicant’s latest restructuring plan, essential testimony in
economic reports, and the positive development of the appli-
cant.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further argues that the Commission wrongly
                                                                             —     annul Commission Regulation No 1829/2002 of
made a preliminary decision in an earlier proceeding about the
adjustment of the purchase price (1), and thereby artificially                     14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ ( 1);
divided its examination, which related to the restructuring as a
whole. The opening of a further formal examination procedure,
relating only to the loan from TAB and the changing of the                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
security, was out of time. The principle of sound administration
required the Commission to assess the whole restructuring
plan as a unity and in its proper context.
The applicant argues that the Commission infringed its defence               Pleas in law and main arguments
rights. Because of the splitting of the procedure, the applicant
was able to adopt a position on only part of the measures, and
the Commission wrongly denied the applicant’s applications
for inspection of the files and a proper legal hearing. The                  The applicant is an inter-branch association which claims to
                                                                             group together and represent the interests of all producers of
Commission infringed the principle of impartiality by not
                                                                             Feta made from ewe’s milk.
giving the applicant and the German Government the oppor-
tunity to comment on the statement of a competitor, which
the Commission had obtained by putting questions to that
competitor.                                                                  The contested regulation reserves the name ‘Feta’ — a protected
                                                                             designation of origin — for Greek producers. The Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities had already annulled, in
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has not                   1996, a Commission regulation on the same subject ( 2).
proved that repayment of the alleged aid in this case would be
appropriate to restore the previous position. Repayment was a
sanction going beyond the limited powers of the Commission.
                                                                             In support of its action for annulment, the applicant argues
                                                                             that no justification or reasons are stated for the choice of the
( 1) Commission Decision K(2001) 1549 of 12.6.2001 on State aid              ‘simplified’ procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation
     by Germany in favour of Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
                                                                             No 2081/92 (3). In order to have recourse to that procedure, it
     against which the applicant brought an action before the Court of
     First Instance (Case T-198/01, OJ 2001 C 303, p. 25).
                                                                             is necessary, not only for an application by the national
                                                                             authorities for a legally protected name in the applicant State
                                                                             to exist before the entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92,
                                                                             but also for that name to be neither legally protected in
                                                                             countries other than the applicant Member State nor in use in
                                                                             those countries. The term ‘Feta’ was not legally protected in
                                                                             Greece — the applicant State — in the sense intended by the
                                                                             legislation at the time of the entry into force of Regulation
Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Confédération                          No 2081/92. By contrast, not only was that same term legally
générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industri-                  protected in Denmark before the entry into force of Regulation
els de roquefort against Commission of the European                          No 2081/92, but also its use was widespread in France and
                             Communities                                     throughout the world.
                            (Case T-381/02)
                                                                             The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations in the analysis of whether the term ‘Feta’ is
                            (2003/C 55/82)
                                                                             generic and that it infringed Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                             No 2081/92 by the fact that it once again did not take
                      (Language of the case: French)                         sufficient account of certain factors: in particular, the existing
                                                                             situation in the Member State in which the name originates,
                                                                             the existing situation in other Member States, and the relevant
                                                                             national and Community laws. In addition, the applicant is of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    the opinion that the Commission infringed Article 2(3) of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Regulation No 2081/92.


title: Case C-475/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the public interest, Mainz

text:
C 63/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the rules, regulations                                       Sweden
     and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Com-
     mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the
     protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                                     (Case C-478/99)
     biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive
     within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
     89/391/EEC) (1) into national law within the prescribed
     period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                                     (2000/C 63/24)
     obligations under the EC Treaty;
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Leo Parpal and Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as Agents, with
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in             an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo
Case C-460/99 (2) the period for transposition prescribed in           Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
Article 2 of Directive 95/30/EC expired on 30 November                 Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
1996.
(1) OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41.
(2) See p. 11 of this Official Journal.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993
                                                                             on unfair terms in consumer contracts by not adopting the
                                                                             laws and other provisions required to transpose the annex
                                                                             referred to in Article 3(3) of the directive into national law;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of
8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner                       2. Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties:
1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-
Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband
Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the
                       public interest, Mainz
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-475/99)
                            (2000/C 63/23)                             The Commission considers that it is important for the Directive
                                                                       to be implemented in such a way that the requirement for
                                                                       legal certainty is ensured and that the legal situation is clear to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 individuals so that they can become acquainted with all their
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-                  rights.
gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Adminis-
trative Court) of 8 December 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 15 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz,              Article 8 of the Directive establishes that the directive has
joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesver-         minimal character whilst Article 3(3) refers to an indicative list
band Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landes-            in the annex. Member States can add new conditions, formulate
verband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the       conditions more strictly (so as to make them more restrictive
public interest, Mainz, on the following question:                     for traders) or alter the ‘scope’ defined in point 2(a)2 of the
                                                                       list. On the other hand, they cannot exclude terms or formulate
Is the concession of a monopoly for the provision of ambu-             them in a way less favourable for consumers. The fact that
lance services over a defined geographical area compatible             Article 3(3) refers to the list and that the seventeenth recital of
with Article 86(1) and Article 81 of the EC Treaty?                    the preamble states that the scope of the terms referred to may
                                                                       only be the subject of amplification or more restrictive editing
                                                                       by the Member States in their national laws also leads to the
                                                                       conclusion that the list must be enacted in national legislation.


title: Case F-35/06: Action brought on  30 March 2006  — Grünheid v Commission

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/36

         Action brought on 30 March 2006 — Grünheid v Commission
   (Case F-35/06)
   (2006/C 143/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 20 July 2004, which was not notified to the applicant but of which she incidentally learnt on 23 June 2005 on the occasion of the rejection of another complaint she had brought, numbered R/162/05, and with which she became acquainted on 29 June at her request, inasmuch as it sets her definitive classification at grade A7, step 3, and annul all consecutive and/or related measures;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 December 2005, notified on 10 January 2006, rejecting the applicant's complaint registered on 22 September 2005 under reference R/732/05;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her application, the applicant puts forward pleas similar to those she has put forward in Case F-101/05 (1), also initiated by her.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2004, p. 26 (the case had been brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and registered under number T-388/05)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, by order of that court of 27 October 1995, in the case of Matthias Witt v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft (Case C-356/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 16/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   other, in order to determine whether there has been
                       ( Second Chamber)                               over-production at national level.
                    of 16 November 1995
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
in Case C- 1 96/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
made by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil d'État,
Luxembourg): Catherine Schiltz-Thilmann v. Minister for
                          Agriculture i 1 )
(Preliminary reference — Interpretation of Article S (c) of            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June                   Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen by order of that court of
1968 on the common organization ofthe market in milk and               14 June 1995 in the case of Selma Kadiman v. Freistaat
milk products — Additional levy — Reference quantity —                                                  Bayern
                             Exceeded)                                                          ( Case C-351/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/09 )                                                           ( 96/C 16/10.)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Seventh
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen
                                                                       ( Administrative Court of Bavaria, Munich ) of 14 June 1995 ,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November
                                                                       1 995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Selma Kadiman
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           v. Freistaat Bayern on the following questions:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 . does the applicability of the first sentence of Article 7 of
                                                                             Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association
In Case C- 1 96/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                             Council on the development of the Association
                                                                              ('Decision No 1/80 ') presuppose that the family must
of the EC Treaty by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil                    still be living together at the time when the other
d'État, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the                          conditions are fulfilled ?
proceedings pending before that court between Catherine
Schiltz-Thilmann and the Minister of Agriculture — on
the interpretation of Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC )            2 . Does the applicability of the first indent of the first
No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                        sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 presuppose
organization of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ,                   three years' uninterrupted legal residence in a Member
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 176 ), as amended by                     State of the Community ?
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 856/84 ( OJ No L 90, p. 10 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1298/85 ( OJ No L 137,               3 . Is a voluntary or forced intermediate stay of five months
p . 5 ), and Article 6 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                    in Turkey to be counted towards the period of three
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                     years' legal residence within the meaning of the first
                                                                              indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
                                                                              No 1 /80 ?
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector ( OJ No L 90, p. 13 ), as amended by Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 590/85 ( OJ No L 68 , p. 1 ) — the
Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch,
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,             Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, by order
the operative part of which is as follows:                             of that court of 27 October 1995 , in the case of Matthias
                                                                                Witt v. Amt fiir Land- und Wasserwirtschaft
                                                                                ( Case C-356/95 )
Article 6 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of                                               ( 96/C 16/11 )
3 1 March 1 984 adopting general rules for the application of
the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC)              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended             the European Communities by an order of the
 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February                   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher
 1985, and Article 5 (c) (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68             Administrative Court of the Land Schleswig-Holstein ),
 ofthe Council of27June 1968 on the common organization                Third Chamber, of 27 October 1995 , which was received at
 of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by                 the Court Registry on 21 November 1995 , for a preliminary
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984                    ruling in the case of Matthias Witt v . Amt fur Land- und
and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1298/85                 Wasserwirtschaft on the following questions:
 of 23 May 1985, are to be interpreted as meaning that they
 do not allow aggregation of the reference quantities for               ( a ) Is   a   Member         State  entitled, under  the  first
 direct sales and for deliveries, which are independent ofeach                 subparagraph of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20 . 1 . 96
        ( EEC ) No 1765/92 ( ) of 30 June 1992 establishing a                     of the Community legal system caused the applicant
        support system for producers of certain arable crops, to                  damage which is not yet possible to quantify with
        establish separate production regions without                             certainty;
        indicating the decisive 'criteria' in that regard ?
                                                                              2 . the European Atomic Energy Community should
( b ) If question ( a ) above is answered in the affirmative, is a                compensate the damage on a basis to be agreed
        Member State which under the third sentence of the
                                                                                between the parties or, failing agreement within 60
        second subparagraph of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Regulation                      days from delivery of the judgment, on a basis to be
        ( EEC ) No 1765/92 has designated not its entire                          defined by the Court.
        territory but — as in the case of the Federal Republic of
        Germany — merely particular parts of it as base area
        regions, entitled in principle under the first
        subparagraph of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        No 1765/92 to establish the whole territory of a
        particular base area region also as a production region         Breach of Community law: The Commission disputed the
        with a uniform average cereals yield ? In the situation         finding of the Court of First Instance that Article 66 of the
        described, in which cases do the ' specific characteristics     EAEC Treaty requires users to exhaust internal sources of
        that influence yields such as soil fertility' require a more    supply before resorting to external suppliers. None the less,
        extensive division of base area regions into individual         users may refuse supplies from the Agency and seek supplies
        production regions with different average cereals               outside the Community (Article 66 ) only if they can claim
        yields ?                                                        that the price is excessive ( not having been corrected by the
                                                                        Council, under Article 69 , or by the equalization
H OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12 .                                  procedure ). The inescapable conclusion must be that
                                                                        Community production offered to the Agency has an
                                                                        assured outlet on the internal market inasmuch as demand
                                                                        exceeds supply, provided that the prices asked are not
                                                                        excessive . The Community preference for producers is
                                                                        obvious .
Appeal brought on 21 November 1995 by ENU ( Empresa
Nacional de Urânio SA) against the judgment delivered on
 15 September 1995 by the Second Chamber ( extended                     Beyond Community production, the Commission will meet
 composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the European           orders only if it obtains supplies from outside the
 Communities in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93                      Community. In other words, the only production on which
between ENU (Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) and the                     the Agency and the users may count with any certainty is the
             Commission of the European Communities                     production compulsorily offered to the Agency by
                          Case C-357/95 P )                             Community producers. The Agency must therefore dispose
                                                                        preferentially of the Community production to meet orders,
                             ( 96/C 16/12 )                             resorting to importation only where this proves to be
                                                                        necessary. Failure to act in that way would prejudice the
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September                'fundamental objective' of the survival and the
 1 995 by the Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the            encouragement of Community production and, in the long
 Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                 term, ensuring the self-sufficiency of the Community .
 Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 between ENU
 ( Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA) and the Commission of
 the European Communities was brought before the Court                   Guaranteeing the disposal of the small production of the
 of Justice of the European Communities on 21 November                   ENU, offered to the Agency at a price which is not excessive,
  1 995 by ENU ( Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA),                         does not even require Community preference to be invoked
 represented by Joâo Mota de Campos and by Joâo Luis                     or recognized. It is clear that, as soon as there is Community
 Mota de Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for                  product available at 'non-excessive' prices, the Agency has
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo                  the power to supply users and the latter may not import
 Basarân, 34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen.                                   directly by virtue of Article 66 . In view of the undisputed
                                                                         fact that Community production is insufficient, covering
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                            only 25 % of a growing market, the above would guarantee
                                                                         the disposal of the small production of ENU.
  ( a ) declare well-founded the application for the annulment
          of the Commission decision challenged before the
          Court of First Instance and, accordingly, declare the          Breach of Community law: the failure by the Agency to
          decision void;                                                 comply with the rules laid down in Chapter VI, under the
                                                                         aegis of the Commission, which disregarded the Treaty,
  ( b ) find that the action for damages brought against the             entailed serious damage for ENU, which must be made good
          Commission, in the terms set forth in the original              by the Community.
          application, is well founded and therefore that:
          1 , the infringement by the Commission of the
              provisions of the EAEC Treaty and of the principles


               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/26

         (2006/C 237/43)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case C-15/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Closure of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Local or regional entity — Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity — Direct concern)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-15/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Closure of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Local or regional entity - Measures of direct and individual concern to that entity - Direct concern)
   (2007/C 96/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Regione Siciliana, (represented by G. Aiello, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, G. Faedo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for a sum no less than ECU 15 million in respect of an infrastructure project for the construction of a dam in Sicily (Italy), and the recovery of the advance made by the Commission
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione Siciliana v Commission.

               2.

               Rejects as inadmissible the Regione Siciliana's action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of the aid granted to the Italian Republic by Commission Decision C (87) 2090 026 of 17 December 1987 concerning the provision of assistance by the European Regional Development Fund as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less than EUR 15 million, in Italy (region: Sicily), and for the recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the Commission.

               3.

               Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by the Regione Siciliana against the judgment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present operative part.

               4.

               Orders the Regione Siciliana to pay the costs of these proceedings and also those incurred in the procedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.