title: Case T-107/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/31

         Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-107/14)
   2014/C 129/39
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, E. Leftheriotou, and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 8743 and published OJ 2013 L 338 to the extent of the sections of it whereby there is excluded, from European Union financing, expenditure (a) to a total amount of EUR 78 813 783,87 , which was incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the area of the single payment scheme for the financial years 2008-2010 and (b) to a total amount of EUR 22 230 822,10 which was incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the area of cross compliance for the financial years 2006-2010;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               In respect of the correction which is imposed by the contested decision in the framework of the single payment scheme of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) (payment entitlements):

                           First plea in law:

                                       —

                                       Lack of legal basis for the imposition of corrections in relation to the calculation of the single payment entitlements and the allocation of the national reserve and misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 42 and 43 of Regulation No 1782/2003, Article 21 and Article 28(1) and (2) of Regulation No 795/2004 (2) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (3) and

                                       —

                                       Unlawful imposition of flat-rate corrections in the framework of the single payment scheme, since there is no valid legal basis for the application of the old guidelines in Document VI/5530/1997 to the new CAP and to the single payment scheme, further, the application of the old guidelines to the new CAP constitutes a misuse of the powers of the ΕU in the area of financial corrections and at the same time is a serious infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                           Second plea in law, relating to the non-inclusion of all the forage areas in the calculation of the reference amounts:

                                       —

                                       Contrary to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality and exceeding the bounds of its discretion, the Commission proposes a 5% flat-rate correction, though it should have proposed no correction, or should have limited it to an amount of 2%.

                           Third plea in law, relating to the non-inclusion of all the forage areas in the calculation of the reference amounts:

                                       —

                                       Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 2529/2001, resulting in an incorrect basis for the calculation of the proposed flat-rate correction, which ought to be limited to the amount of EUR 162 920 267,28 for the year 2007, EUR 162 528 761,38 for the year 2008 and EUR 161 343 586,94 for the year 2009.

                           Fourth plea in law, in relation to the allocation of the national reserve:

                                       —

                                       Misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 42 of Regulation No 1782/03 and Article 21 of Regulation No 795/2004 (criteria for the allocation of the national reserve) and erroneous assessment of the facts.

                           Fifth plea in law, in relation to the allocation of the national reserve:

                                       —

                                       Absence of the required conditions for the application of Regulation No 1290/2005, since the Commission’s findings in relation to the national criteria for the allocation of the national reserve do not constitute infringements of it, and·

                                       —

                                       Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the guidelines in Document VΙ/553O/1997, since (a) the criticisms which the Commission relies on in relation to the criteria for the allocation of the national reserve even if assumed to be correct did not lead to the payment of sums to persons not entitled and did not create the risk of loss for the EAGF and (b) the criticisms in question are not linked to the failure to apply a key control and therefore do not justify the imposition of a flat-rate correction of 10%.

               2.

               With regard to the correction imposed by the contested decisions in the area of cross compliance:

                           Sixth plea in law:

                                       —

                                       The Commission’s Document AGRI-2005-64043 issued on 9 June 2006 cannot constitute a legal basis for the imposition of a financial correction. In any event it cannot be applied retrospectively for the imposition of a correction for the 2006 claim year.

                           Seventh plea in law, specifically in respect of the 2008 claim year:

                                       —

                                       The financial corrections have been imposed contrary to the procedure laid down in Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, and·

                                       —

                                       In any event the Commission erred as to the facts and provided insufficient reasons in coming to the conclusion that there were weaknesses in the basic control system in the area of cross compliance.

                           Eighth plea in law: misapplication of Document AGRI-2005-64043:

                                       —

                                       The Commission exceeded the bounds of its discretion when it decided on the imposition of corrections of a disproportionate amount in respect of the identified irregularities, to the extent that a correction of 5% is imposed for the years 2006 and 2007, and·

                                       —

                                       Error in the determination of the basis of calculation of the correction imposed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-299/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen (Taxation — VAT — Taxable transactions — Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ — Treatment as a supply for consideration — Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen
   (Case C-299/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Taxable transactions - Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ - Treatment as a supply for consideration - Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)
   2013/C 9/26
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(5), Article 5(7)(a) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable transactions — Use of materials for the purposes of the business — Use, for exempt activities of a business, of land owned by it and converted to its order by a third person for remuneration

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, read in conjunction with Article 11(A)(1)(b) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the application by a taxable person, for the purposes of an economic activity exempt from value added tax, of sports pitches which he owns and which he has had transformed by a third person can be subject to value added tax calculated on the basis of the aggregate arrived at by adding to the transformation costs the value of the ground on which the pitches lie, to the extent that the taxable person has not yet paid the value added tax relating to that value or to those costs, and provided that the pitches at issue are not covered by the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(h) of the Sixth Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Appeal brought on 9 June 1997 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 16 April 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-80/96 between Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council of the European Union (Case C-218/97 P)

text:
No C 228/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         26 . 7. 97
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       1 . Is Article 13 ( A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive (') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons ( i.e.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          individuals) who carry on business in common as
                                                                             partners        cannot         claim     exemption        under
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                   subparagraph ( b ) in the circumstances summarized in
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,               the schedule to these questions and on the assumptions
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under                       that :
Article 395 and Annex XXXVI of the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Portuguese Republic to the                    ( i ) the business consists of medical care and closely
                                                                                related activities:
European Communities, Directive 75/440/EEC is
applicable in Portugal as from 1 January 1989; the period                           and
for the entry into force of the necessary provisions of
domestic law thus expired on that date . Despite the                         ( ii ) they are 'duly recognized' and their activities are
prescribed periods having expired, the Portuguese                                   of a similar nature to those provided by ' hospitals'
Republic has nevertheless failed to adopt a systematic plan                         and/or     'centres     for   medical  treatment        or
of action including a timetable for the improvement of                              diagnosis '?
surface water, especially that falling within category A3 .
(') OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 26 .
                                                                             In particular, are            the  partners  excluded      from
                                                                             exemption because :
                                                                             ( a ) they do not constitute a ' body' governed by public
                                                                                law;
                                                                              ( b ) their activities are not undertaken under social
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                          conditions comparable to those applicable to
di Bologna, Sezione Lavoro, by order of that court of                               bodies governed by public law ?
16 April 1997 in the case of Barbara Bellone against
                          Yokohama SpA
                                                                        2 . Is Article 13 (A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive to be
                         ( Case C-215 /97 )
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons
                            ( 97/C 228/20 )                                   ( i.e. individuals ) who carry on business in common
                                                                              as partners cannot claim exemption under
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        subparagraph (g) in the circumstances summarized in
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di                      the schedule to these questions and on the assumption
Bologna, Sezione Lavoro ( District Civil Court of Bologna,                    that the services they supply are 'closely linked to
Employment Division ) of 16 April 1997, received at the                       welfare and social security work, including those
 Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                   supplied by old people's homes'?
the case of Barbara Bellone v. Yokohame SpA on the
following question:                                                     (') Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
Is Directive 86/653/EEC (') compatible with Articles 2 and                  uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977 , p. 1 ).
 9 of Italian Law No 204 of 3 May 1985 , which make the
 validity of agency contracts conditional upon commercial
 agents being entered in the appropriate register ?
 (') OJ No L 382 , 31 . 12 . 198 , p . 17 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 9 June 1997 by the Council of the
                                                                        European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         16 April 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities in Case T-80/96
                                                                         between Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
 Tribunal, Belfast, by direction of that court of 4 June                                         of the European Union
 1997, in the case of Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg                                              ( Case C-218/97 P )
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                                                 ( 97/C 228/22 )
                          ( Case C-216/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/21 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
                                                                         1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  of the European Communities in Case T-80/96 between
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and                        Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council of the
 Duties Tribunal, Belfast, of 4 June 1997, which was                     European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
 received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a                    of the European Communities on 9 June 1997 by the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Jennifer Gregg and                    Council of the European Union, represented by Amadeu
 Mervyn Gregg against the Commissioners of Customs and                   Lopes Sabino, Diego Canga Fano and Therese Blanchet, of
 Excise , on the following questions :                                   its Legal Servie, with an address for service in
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7. 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/ 11
Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli,                       der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad                         6 June 1997, received at the Court Registry on 12 June
Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                                   1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B. V.
                                                                       Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken, formerly Bonn & Mees,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            against Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en
                                                                       Flavenbedrijven on the following questions:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      16 April 1997 in Case T-80/96 Ana Maria Fernandes                ( a ) Is an occupational pension fund such as the Stichting
      Leite Mateus v. Council of the European Union,                         Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven, to
                                                                             which all or one or more specified groups of
                                                                             employees in the relevant sector are obliged to be
— uphold the contentions put forward by the Council at                       affiliated by virtue of and in accordance with the
      first instance, namely:                                                WBPF (Wet betreffende Verplichte Deelneming in een
      — that the action should be dismissed, and
                                                                             Bedrijfspensioenfonds ( Law on compulsory affiliation
                                                                             to an occupational pension fund )), to be regarded as
      — that the applicants should be ordered to pay the                     an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85 , 86
           costs ,
                                                                             or 90 of the EC Treaty ?
— make an appropriate order as to the costs of                         ( b ) Where a number of organizations which the
      proceedings before the Court of Justice.                               Minister subsequently regards as being sufficiently
                                                                             representative of the employers' associations and trade
                                                                             unions in a particular sector, within the meaning of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the first paragraph of Article 3 of the WBPF, apply to
                                                                             the Minister pursuant to that provision for affiliation
The contested judgment infringes the legal framework laid                    to a particular pension fund within the meaning of
down by the notice of competition :                                          that Law to be made compulsory, is that joint action
                                                                             on the part of those organizations to be regarded as an
Infringement of the special conditions for admission to the                  agreement between undertakings, a decision by
competition: as may be seen from a reading of the                            associations of undertakings or a concerted practice
contested judgment, the applicant in Case T-80/96                            within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty
submitted only a certificate as evidence of her professional                 which, within the meaning of that Treaty provision, ( i )
experience; she did not produce either a contract or a                       may affect trade between Member States, and ( ii ) has
letter of engagement as required by the notice of                            as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or
competition ( reproduced in paragraph 3 of the judgment).                    distortion of competition within the common market ?
That argument was put forward in the written stage and
pointed out on several occasions during the oral part, but             (c ) Is compulsory affiliation as described above to be
no mention was made of it in the judgment,                                   regarded as a measure which may render ineffective
                                                                             the competition rules applicable to undertakings, or, at
( in the alternative ) error in law with regard to the scope of              least, as a measure by which a Member State requires
the concept of 'first Escrituraria',                                         or favours the adoption of agreements contrary to
                                                                             Article 85 or reinforces their effects, or is that the case
                                                                             only in certain circumstances and, if so, in what
( in the alternative ) error in law with regard to the                       circumstances ?
interpretation of the candidature,
                                                                       ( d ) If question ( C ) is to be answered in the negative, are
( in the alternative ) the contested judgment was wrong to                   there other circumstances which may render such
find that the selection board had committed a manifest                       compulsory affiliation incompatible with the
error of assessment regarding professional experience .                      provisions of Article 90 of the EC Treaty and, if so,
                                                                             what circumstances ?
                                                                       ( e ) Can such compulsory affiliation be regarded as the
                                                                             grant to an occupational pension fund of an exclusive
                                                                             right within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad                        Treaty, and is such a pension fund placed as a result in
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 June                          a dominant position which it abuses merely by
1997 in the case of B. V. Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken,                     exercising that exclusive right, in particular on the
formerly Bonn & Mees, against Stichting Pensioenfonds                        ground that such compulsory affiliation may affect
               voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven                            trade between Member States and the provision of
                         ( Case C-2 19/97 )                                  services is limited, contrary to subparagraph ( b )
                           ( 97/C 228/23                                     of the second paragraph of Article 86, to the
                                                                             detriment of compulsorily affiliated undertakings and/
                                                                             or employees ? Alternatively, can such compulsory
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       affiliation create a situation in which a pension fund is
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                            induced to commit such an abuse or is at least placed


title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-95/98)

text:
15.8.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/37
into the following groups: (1) documents prepared by the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Member States and by the Argentinian authorities and (2)
Commission documents.                                                Ð declare the action admissible;
As regards the documents in the first of those groups, the           Ð annul the decision of the examining jury in
applicant is recommended to request copies of the                        competition COM/A/17/96 not to include him in the
documents in question direct from the Member States                      list of successful candidates, together with the decision
and from the authorities concerned. According to the                     of the competent Commission authority approving and
Commission, the documents in the second group are the                    ratifying that list, the tacit rejection of administrative
subject of pending legal proceedings (3) and consequently                complaint R/056/98, and all further implementing acts
fall within the exception relating to protection of the                  by the Commission;
public interest, and in particular the proper conduct of
court proceedings, for which express provision is made in
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant BFR
the Code of Conduct.
                                                                         300 000 in respect of non-material injury;
In that regard, the applicant pleads as follows in its
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
application:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As to point (1):
                                                                     The applicant relies on multiple infringements of the rules
The Commission may not refuse to give access to a
                                                                     of law governing the conduct of competitions for the
document on the ground that its author is not the
                                                                     recruitment of staff of the European Communities which
Commission. Refusal to grant access to the documents
                                                                     are alleged to have occurred during the course of internal
concerned cannot be justified by relying on the
                                                                     competition COM/17/96 for transfer form Grade B to
corresponding provision of the Code of Conduct. Thus the
                                                                     Grade A, in which he was a candidate. According to the
contested decision infringes both Decision 94/90/ECSC,
                                                                     applicant, the infringements in question entail the nullity
EC, Euratom and the Code of Conduct. The applicant
                                                                     of the competition, and also give grounds for a claim for
pleads, in the alternative, that the contested decision
                                                                     compensation. The infringements in question are the
infringes Article 190 of the EC Treaty, since it does not
                                                                     following:
contain an adequate statement of the reasons on which it
is based.
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment of
                                                                         candidates
As to point (2):
                                                                         At the outset the applicant alleges a threefold
In the applicant's view, the contested decision is void,
                                                                         infringement of the fundamental requirement of equal
since it infringes Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom and
                                                                         treatment of candidates in competitions for the
the Code of Conduct. The application is based, in the
                                                                         recruitment of officials.
alternative, on infringement of Article 176 of the EC
Treaty in conjunction with the judgment in Case T-124/96                 (a) Infringement on the grounds of the variable
and infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                             composition of the examining jury during the oral
                                                                              tests and the stage-by-stage appraisal.
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 14.
(2) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                     (b) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment on
(3) Case T-50/96 Primex Produkte Import und Export and Others
                                                                              linguistic   grounds/discrimination      based    on
    v Commission, currently pending (OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996,
    p. 33).
                                                                              nationality.
                                                                         (c) Infringement on the ground of different treatment
                                                                              of the candidates in regard to the fourth criterion
                                                                              (drafting aptitude).
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of leniency and of the
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Christos Gogos
                                                                         general rules governing the grading of competitions.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-95/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of
                          (98/C 258/67)                                  Officials.
An action against the Commission of the European                     Ð Infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
by Christos Gogos, a Grade B5 official with the                      Ð Infringement of the rules governing notice of the
Commission, represented by Professor Chary Tagara, of                    competition.
the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21 Rue Nassau, L-2213.


C 161/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
      Removal from the Register of Case T-350/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-150/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/51)                                                           (2001/C 161/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 13 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-350/99,
                                                                          Register of Case T-150/00, Groupement Européen des Produc-
Bogoljub Karic and Others v Council of the European Union.
                                                                          teurs de Verre Plat (GEPV) v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-29/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-168/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/52)                                                           (2001/C 161/55)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the First                  By order of 7 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-29/00, Deutsche Post AG v Commission of the                        Case T-168/00, Düsseldorfer Senfspezialitäten v Office for
European Communities.                                                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs).
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-91/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-189/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/53)                                                           (2001/C 161/56)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          By order of 22 February 2001, the President of the Second
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-189/00, ‘Invest’ Import und Export Gmbh et Invest
Case T-91/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                          Commerce SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
Communities.
                                                                          ties.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case C-454/01: Action brought on 22 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
19.1.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 17/11
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt           PCBs to be removed or decontaminated, the plan referred
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                    to in Article 11 must be drawn up and notified to the
                                                                         Commission.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-          (1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.                          (2) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Andreas
                                                                         Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against the order made on
                                                                         11 September 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
Action brought on 22 November 2001 by the Com-                           the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                  T-270/99 Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against
                      Republic of Germany                                Council of the European Union, supported by the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
                         (Case C-454/01)
                                                                                (Case C-461/01 P)
                          (2002/C 17/18)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/19)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             An appeal against the order made on 11 September 2001 by
ties on 22 November 2001 by the Commission of the                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen,                    (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-270/99 Andreas Tessas and
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Polixeni Tessa against Council of the European Union, support-
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a Member              ed by the Hellenic Republic, was brought before the Court of
of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.             Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2001
                                                                         by Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa, represented by Andreas
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Tessas, of the Larissa Bar.
1.    Declare that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed          The appellants claim that the Court should:
      period the plan required by the first indent of Article 11(1)
      of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996             —     set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
      on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-                   Instance of 11 September 2001 in Case T-270/99 and
      chlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), or in any event by                     grant the form of order sought at first instance;
      failing to notify such plan to the Commission, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      under the EC Treaty;
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            Grounds of appeal and main arguments
                                                                         —     Incorrect definition of the recipients of the Council
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                decision contested at first instance: the Court of First
                                                                               Instance wrongly held that the decision at issue was not
                                                                               of direct and individual concern to the appellants.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-435/01 (2); the prescribed period for the drawing up and               —     Infringement of the right to a fair hearing.
notification of the plan expired on 16 September 1999. Even
if the Federal Republic of Germany has only a relatively small           —     Infringement of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure
amount of equipment containing PCBs and small amounts of                       concerning costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000 in Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing such failure — Non-compliance — Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC) — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment — Waste Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 302/5
Käräjäoikeus, Finland, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-            in Turin (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and
ings pending before that court between Tullihallitus and Kaupo             V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Salumets and Others — on the interpretation of the Sixth                   Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the har-                    — appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
monisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                    the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 February
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 1999 in Case T-124/98 Politi v European Training Foundation
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), Council Directive               [1999] ECR-SC I-A-9 and II-29, seeking to have that order set
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,                    Training Foundation, represented by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsan-
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,                    walt, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
p. 1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the               the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol                Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre,
and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) and Council                 Kirchberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-                      D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)                   A. La Pergola, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President             Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;              given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
M. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                 1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2000, in which it has ruled:
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                   2.    Orders Mr Politi to pay the costs.
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on             (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as
meaning that their provisions on liability to tax and tax debts apply
also to contraband importation into Community customs territory of
ethyl alcohol from non-member countries.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                of 4 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                           of 29 June 2000                                 Judgment of the Court establishing such failure — Non-
                                                                           compliance — Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article
in Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politi v European Training                     228 EC) — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment
                            Foundation (1)                                      — Waste Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC)
(Appeal — Temporary staff — Time-limit for lodging
                                                                                (2000/C 302/10)
complaint — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Error
                in classification — Admissibility)
                           (2000/C 302/09)                                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politia former member of the                   In Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communities
temporary staff of the European Training Foundation, residing              (Agent: M. Condou-Durande), supported by United Kingdom
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.10.2000
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and E.-M.
Mamouna and G. Karipsiadis) — application for a declaration
that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with                                       of 4 July 2000
the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91
Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular,
by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans                     in Case C-424/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous               from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Salomone Haim v
waste from the area concerned without endangering human                          Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (1)
health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171           (Member State liability in the event of a breach of Com-
of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order                   munity law — Breaches attributable to a public-law body of
requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission,                 a Member State — Conditions for the liability of the Member
into the account ‘EC own resources’, a daily penalty payment              State and of a public-law body of that State — Compatibility
of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the                    of a language requirement with freedom of establishment)
measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case
C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment — the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                                            (2000/C 302/11)
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schint-
gen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
teur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                                    (Language of the case: German)
Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to                            in the European Court Reports)
      ensure that waste is disposed of in the area of Chania
      without endangering human health and without harming the
                                                                          In Case C-424/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      environment in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive
                                                                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste and by failing to draw
                                                                          (Regional Court) Düsseldorf, Germany, for a preliminary
      up for that area plans for the disposal of waste, pursuant to
                                                                          ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      Article 6 of Directive 75/442, and of toxic and dangerous
                                                                          Salomone Haim and Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nor-
      waste, pursuant to Article 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC
                                                                          drhein — on the liability of a Member State and, possibly, of a
      of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste, the Hellenic
                                                                          public-law body of that State for loss and damage caused by
      Republic has not implemented all the necessary measures to
                                                                          an infringement of Community law, and on the legality of
      comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in
                                                                          making the appointment of a national of another Member
      Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece and has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          State as a dental practitioner under a social security scheme
      obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                          conditional upon his having a sufficient knowledge of the
                                                                          language of the host State — the Court, composed of:
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      European Communities, into the account ‘EC own resources’, a        teur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      penalty payment of EUR 20 000 for each day of delay in              P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
      implementing the measures necessary to comply with the              H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      judgment in Case C-45/91, from delivery of the present              General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
      judgment until the judgment in Case C-45/91 has been                has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
      complied with;
                                                                          1.    Community law does not preclude a public-law body, in
                                                                                addition to the Member State itself, from being liable to make
3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;                            reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result
                                                                                of measures which it took in breach of Community law.
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             2.    In order to determine whether there is a serious breach of
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                            Community law, within the meaning of the case-law of the
                                                                                Court, account must be taken of the extent of the discretion
                                                                                enjoyed by the Member State concerned. The existence and the
                                                                                scope of that discretion must be determined by reference to
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                                      Community law and not by reference to national law.
                                                                          3.    The competent authorities of a Member State may make the
                                                                                appointment, as a social security scheme dental practitioner, of
                                                                                a national of another Member State who is established in the
                                                                                first Member State and authorised to practise there but has


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 19 February 2004 In Case C-312/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   19 February 2004
   In Case C-312/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 1999/44/EC)
   (2004/C 94/17)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-312/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) against Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.09.2003.


title: Case F-139/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/25

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-139/11)
   2012/C 65/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch and E. Raimond, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment, first, of the decision of OLAF’s Director-General containing a final invitation to a hearing of the applicant in the framework of an internal investigation and stating that a final report on the investigation would be adopted on the basis only of the information collected and analysed unilaterally by OLAF, if the applicant did not accept the invitation and, second, of the letter rejecting his complaint.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 October 2011;

               —

               Annul the letter of 2 December 2011 ruling on the complaint of 21 November 2011;

               —

               Award the applicant compensation in the sum of EUR 6000 in damages with interest;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-71/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/28

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council
   (Case T-71/12)
   2012/C 109/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 13 of Table A of the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare that the annulment of the contested acts has immediate effect, notwithstanding Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union lacks competence to impose an asset freeze and travel ban under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) in a situation which is internal to the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human and fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the defendant in violation of its procedural obligations and the applicant’s rights of defence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that in so far as either Persia International Bank’s or Bank Mellat’s respective applications for annulment of their respective designations is successful, the applicant’s own designation must be also annulled.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996 and 1997 — Public storage of bovine meat)

text:
C 303/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                of 13 September 2001
                                                                           in Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Failure by a State to comply with its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   and management — Failure to designate the competent
                                                                           authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the
                                                                                directive)
                     of 13 September 2001
in Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                                                (2001/C 303/05)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996
          and 1997 — Public storage of bovine meat)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (2001/C 303/04)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           In Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Abad) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                   in the European Court Reports)                          designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in
                                                                           the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC
                                                                           of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
In Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), the Kingdom of Spain
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                  has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive —
J. Guerra Fernández) — application for the partial annulment              the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
of Commission Decision 1999/603/EC of 28 July 1999                         President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                     P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger,
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      on 13 September 2001, in which it:
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 234, p. 6), in respect of the financial
adjustment imposed of 5 % of certain expenditure declared by
Spain under tariff headings 2111 (technical expenditure),
2112 (financial expenditure) and 2113 (other expenditure),                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
corresponding to the sector for public storage of bovine meat                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                         designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-                        first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of
teur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geel-                     27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it:                                      obligations under that directive;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
( 1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.


title: Case T-79/09: Action brought on 20 February 2009 — France v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/37

         Action brought on 20 February 2009 — France v Commission
   (Case T-79/09)
   2009/C 113/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 by which the Commission found that the compulsory voluntary levies collected by the inter-branch organisations from members of the professions which they represent for the purpose of financing actions capable of being carried out by those organisations were a measure constituting State Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   In support of its action, the application puts forward, with regard to the substance, a plea in law alleging:

               —

               failure to take account of the definition of State Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC inasmuch as the Commission found, contrary to what the French Government maintains, that those compulsory voluntary levies constitute parafiscal contributions, that is to say, State resources, although:

                           —

                           the procedure for recognising inter-branch organisations and the extension procedure for inter-branch agreements cannot be considered to be means for the State to implement a particular policy which it has previously defined;

                           —

                           the basis of assessment, the amount, the treatment and the use of compulsory voluntary levies are fixed by the inter-branch organisations in their agreements, the public authorities not intervening at any stage;

                           —

                           the compulsory voluntary levies are to be mandatorily used to finance the action for which they are intended and can never be put at the disposal of the public authorities;

                           —

                           persons liable to pay compulsory voluntary levies necessarily benefit from actions financed by those levies and all the operators in the sector bear the cost as purchasers or vendors of the produce concerned.


title: Case T-49/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL — Earlier EU word mark NEORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)
   (Case T-49/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL - Earlier EU word mark NEORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 161/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Azanta A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-119/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen
   (Case C-119/07) (1)

   (2007/C 199/46)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-541/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal — Germany) — proceedings brought by Mircea Florian Freitag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Individual having the nationality of both the Member State in which he resides and the Member State in which he was born — Change of surname in the Member State of birth not carried out during a period of habitual residence — Name corresponding to birth name — Application for the entry of that name in the civil register of the Member State of residence — Rejection of that application — Reason — Name not acquired during a period of habitual residence — Existence of other procedures in national law to have that name recognised)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal — Germany) — proceedings brought by Mircea Florian Freitag
   (Case C-541/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Individual having the nationality of both the Member State in which he resides and the Member State in which he was born - Change of surname in the Member State of birth not carried out during a period of habitual residence - Name corresponding to birth name - Application for the entry of that name in the civil register of the Member State of residence - Rejection of that application - Reason - Name not acquired during a period of habitual residence - Existence of other procedures in national law to have that name recognised))
   (2017/C 249/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Wuppertal

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Mircea Florian Freitag

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the registry office of a Member State from refusing to recognise and enter in the civil register the name legally acquired by a national of that Member State in another Member State, of which he is also a national, and which is the same as his birth name, on the basis of a provision of national law which makes the possibility of having such an entry made, by declaration to the registry office, subject to the condition that that name must have been acquired during a period of habitual residence in that other Member State, unless there are other provisions of national law which effectively allow the recognition of that name.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case C-11/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system — Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules — Vicarious liability)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
   (Case C-11/12) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system - Reduction of or exclusion from payments in the event of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules - Vicarious liability)
   2013/C 38/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maatschap L.A. en D.A.B. Langestraat en P. Langestraat-Troost

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Integrated management and control system — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Farmer who leased, from a third party, agricultural land and accepted, on a temporary basis, the spreading of manure on that land by that third party — Non-compliance, on the part of that third party, with the statutory management requirements

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, is to be interpreted as meaning that non-compliance with cross-compliance rules by the person to whom or from whom the agricultural land was transferred, involving reduction of the total amount of direct payments or exclusion from direct support, must be attributed in full to the farmer submitting the aid application.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2011.


title: Case C-70/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2013 by Getty Images (US), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11: Getty Images (US), Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/12

         Appeal brought on 8 February 2013 by Getty Images (US), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11: Getty Images (US), Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-70/13 P)
   2013/C 101/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Getty Images (US), Inc. (represented by: P. Olson, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the appeal brought by Getty Images against the OHIM examiner’s decision of 2 August 2010;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three pleas in law: (i) infringement of CTMR (1) Art. 7(1)(b), (ii) infringement of Art. 7(1)(c) and (iii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
   Under Art. 7(1)(b), a mark may not be registered if it is devoid of ‘any distinctive character.’ A minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient to render inapplicable the grounds for refusal set out in that article Here the fact that the identical mark for identical and similar goods/services has twice been considered to possess the requisite distinctive character creates a very strong presumption that the PHOTOS.COM possesses the minimum amount of distinctiveness necessary. The mere fact that each of the elements considered separately is devoid of distinctive character does not mean that their combination is not distinctive. As a combination of PHOTOS +.COM, the mark takes on a meaning independent of those elements’ individual meanings. It is clearly understood by the relevant audience to be a commercial domain name. Domain names are unique in their nature. As such, PHOTOS.COM indicates to the consumer that it is a unique origin of goods and services which is distinguishable from other sources of goods and services with a different name. In this way, it fulfils the purpose of a trademark and meets the Art. 7(1)(b) threshold for distinctiveness.
   The public interest to take into consideration in applying Art. 7(1)(b) is to examine whether the mark is capable of guaranteeing the identity of the origin of the goods/services to the consumer by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the service from others which have another origin. It is common ground that each domain name is unique, and that a domain name ending in.com indicates a commercial website. In paragraph 22 of the contested decision, the General Court acknowledged that the.com element will immediately be recognised by the relevant public as referring to a commercial internet site. The Court erred by ignoring the fact that the domain name functions well to enable the consumer to distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from the applicant’s competitors. The public interest in protecting the consumer is achieved and Art. 7(1)(b) is not infringed.
   As regards Art. 7(1)(c), the General Court elected not to address this issue. Nonetheless it is not infringed in that the public interest behind that provision is the protection of the appellant’s competitors, none of whom are affected by the registration because it is a domain name be-longing to the appellant. Nor is the mark objectively descriptive in relation to the goods/services.
   The principle of equal treatment demands that OHIM must be bound by its own prior decisions when reviewing identical trademark applications absent any indication that the earlier marks were registered in error. This principle compels the court to set aside OHIM’s conclusion that PHOTOS.COM was not eligible for registration. The General Court argues that these principles must be balanced with ‘respect for legality’ and that trademark applicants may not rely on prior decisions to secure an identical decision, because the prior decision was a ‘possibly unlawful act committed to the benefit of someone else’; therefore, the court found that ‘such an examination must be undertaken in each individual case’ (paragraph 69 of the contested decision).
   The principle of equal treatment is at odds with the principle of legality. Since the STREAMSERVE decision (see Judgment of 27 February 2002, Case T-106/00, Streamserve v OHIM), the principle of legality has had the upper hand. This has resulted in legal uncertainty and a flood of appeals. In light of this experience more focus on the principle of equal treatment is warranted. OHIM examiners have a duty to act consistently, to apply common standards, to identify analogous cases and to give them similar treatment. When trademark applicants refer to prior registered marks, OHIM examiners should not simply be allowed to refer to STREAMSERVE and ignore the fundamental principle of equal treatment. Instead of a principle of legality whereby prior registrations are literally considered mistakes, a much more viable method is to presume that the prior marks were properly registered. In no instance is the duty to apply the principle of equal treatment so clear as where, as here, the marks and the goods are identical.
   To conclude, the mark PHOTOS.COM is equally distinctive for its goods and services as the two prior registered marks. The same basis exists for registering the mark for these as it does for the original marks, and the principle of equal treatment requires this.

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


title: Case C-393/07: Action brought on 9 August 2007 — Italian Republic v European Parliament

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/18

         Action brought on 9 August 2007 — Italian Republic v European Parliament
   (Case C-393/07)
   (2007/C 247/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, agent, and P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision P6_TA-PROV(2007)0209 of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007, notified on 28 May 2007, concerning the verification of Beniamino Donnici's credentials;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is based on five grounds.
   By the first ground, the Italian Government alleges infringement of rules of law by reference to Articles 6 (formerly 4), 8 (formerly 7), 12 (formerly 11) and 13 (formerly 12) of Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, relating to the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976 (‘the 1976 Act’), as amended most recently by Decision No 2002/772/EC/Euratom of 25 June 2002 (1), and by reference to Article 6 EU. In verifying the credentials of Members, the European Parliament cannot as a matter of fact examine the lawfulness of national electoral procedures and must simply take cognisance of the results lawfully declared under those procedures. The prohibition on Members who are bound by binding instructions or under a binding mandate laid down in Article 6 of the 1976 Act has no bearing on the express decision of an unelected candidate not to replace an elected candidate who has ceased to hold office.
   By its second ground, the Italian Government alleges infringement of rules of law by reference to Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of 28 September 2005 (2). Those provisions will in fact enter into force with effect from the 2009 legislative period and in any event concern only sitting Members and are therefore irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the decision of an unelected candidate not to replace an elected candidate who has ceased to hold office.
   By its third ground, the Italian Government alleges infringement of rules of law by reference to Article 199 EC and Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. Those provisions govern only the internal procedures of the Parliament, inter alia, when verifying credentials and the power cannot therefore be inferred from those provisions to examine the lawfulness of national electoral procedures, not even with regard to the replacement of elected candidates who have ceased to hold office with unelected candidates.
   By its fourth ground, the Italian Government alleges infringement of rules of law by reference to Article 6 EU and Articles 10 and 230 EC. The European Parliament did not have the power to disapply the judgment of the Italian Consiglio di Stato, which is final and conclusive and which established that the election of Mr Donnici was lawful. The European Parliament should, if necessary, have challenged that judgment by initiating third-party proceedings. In any event, the decision of the European Parliament is contrary to the general principle of res judicata, which is common to all the Member States.
   By its fifth ground, the Italian Government claims that the contested decision failed to give adequate reasons. Indeed, that decision does not state the relevant facts on the basis of which the Parliament concluded that Mr Occhetto's decision not to replace Mr Di Pietro was not freely made.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 283, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.


title: Case T-210/07: Action brought on 11 June 2007 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/39

         Action brought on 11 June 2007 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-210/07)
   (2007/C 183/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: S. Daly, Solicitor and B. Conway, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to annul the decision of the Commission as conveyed to the applicant by the Revenue Commissioners on 30 March 2007 as it fails to classify the applicant's product for tariff classification purposes under the Combined Nomenclature by reference to the objective characteristics and qualities of the product;

               —

               to declare that the customs classification of the product is to be determined pursuant to the intrinsic characteristic of the product which is that it is in the nature of an automatic data processing machine and so falls to be classified within the terms of Chapter 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature; or, in the alternative

               —

               to declare that the product is to be classified by reference to its essential characteristic as a calculating machine or device pursuant to Chapter 8470 of the Combined Nomenclature;

               —

               to declare that in accordance with the accepted classification rules of goods for Community customs purposes that the essential characteristic of the product is not that of a security device or a means of access to records whether stored on an automatic data processing machine or otherwise;

               —

               to order the repayment to the applicant of such customs duty as has been paid by the applicant in respect of the importation of the product into the Community since the coming into force of the Commission's decision together with the repayment of interest to the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks annulment of a Commission decision of which the applicant was informed by e-mail correspondence served on it on 30 March 2007 by the Revenue Commissioners, in response to an application for binding tariff information submitted by the applicant in respect of a security device connectible to an automatic data processing machine referred to as the ‘SID 800 Product’.
   The applicant claims that the decision as communicated in the first instance to the Revenue Commissioners and hence to the applicant itself failed to classify the applicant's product by reference to its objective characteristics and qualities and determined the tariff classification in a manner which constitutes a fundamental error of law.
   The applicant further submits that the correct tariff classification of the product by reference to its essential characteristics should be that of a unit of an automatic data processing machine pursuant to Chapter 8471 of the Community Customs Code (1) in that the product complies with the requirements of Note 5(B) of Chapter 8471 for such classification, or is in itself an automatic data processing machine.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the correct tariff classification of the product by reference to its objective characteristics is as a calculating machine or device pursuant to Chapter 8470 of the Community Customs Code.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission's actions in dealing with its request for binding tariff information of the product on the basis of the product's attributes as a unit of an automatic data processing machine amount to a lack of due process and abuse of power.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-639/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/8

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO
   (Case C-639/16 P)
   (2017/C 202/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Żabińska, radca prawny)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dariusz Michalczewski
   By order of 11 May 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-123/09: Action brought on 28 March 2009 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/45

         Action brought on 28 March 2009 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-123/09)
   2009/C 141/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               To declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that part of the European Commission’s decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case C26/2008 (Loan of EUR 300 million to Alitalia S.p.A.) is void insofar as it does not order the recovery of the aid from the successors of Alitalia and grants Italy additional time to implement its decision;

               —

               to declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the entire decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia S.p.A.) is void;

               —

               to order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and

               —

               to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the legality of two Commission decisions of 12 November 2008 in State aid Cases C 26/2008 (ex NN 31/08) on the loan of EUR 300 million granted to Alitalia notified under document number C(2008) 6743 (1) and N510/2008 No C(2008) 6745 final regarding the procedure for the sale of the assets of Alitalia insofar as it found that the said procedure did not give rise to the grant of a State aid, provided that the Italian authorities complied with certain commitments.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
   In respect to the first contested decision, the applicant submits that it is partially void because it does not order recovery from Alitalia’s successors and it grants Italy additional time to recover the loan.
   In respect to the second contested decision, the applicant claims that by not initiating a formal investigation procedure despite the existence of serious difficulties the Commission issued an incomplete and insufficient decision and violated the applicant’s procedural rights available under Article 88(2) EC. In addition, the applicant contends that the Commission lacked competence for the adoption of a conditional decision of absence of aid after a simple preliminary examination. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to examine all the relevant features of the measures and their context. In particular, according to the applicant the Commission failed to review whether the Italian extraordinary administration procedure in itself gave rise to the grant of aid and whether the Italian government had manipulated legislation to favour Compagnia Aerea Italiana’s plan.
   Further, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by disregarding the possible alternatives to the sale of Alitalia’s assets, such as a judicial liquidation or a share deal. The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to apply the market economy investor principle to the sale of Alitalia’s assets, in particular, by not assessing the effect on price of the express condition of continuity of service and the implied condition of Italian origin of the buyer of Alitalia’s passenger transport business, by not finding that the procedure for the sale of Alitalia’s assets was obviously inadequate, and by failing to assess the true price offered by CAI and to define criteria for the determination of the market price of Alitalia’s assets.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission committed an error in the identification of the party who must reimburse the loan, which should be CAI given the continuity between Alitalia and Compagnia Aerea Italiana. The applicant submits finally, that the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 52, p. 3