title: Case T-116/07: Action brought on 17 April 2007 — France v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/27

         Action brought on 17 April 2007 — France v Commission
   (Case T-116/07)
   (2007/C 140/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 30 June 1997, adopted following a proposal from the Commission and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 92/81/EEC (1), the Council authorised the Member States to apply or to continue to apply the existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty to certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes. By four subsequent decisions, the Council extended that authorisation, the final authorisation period expiring on 31 December 2006. France is authorised to apply these reduced rates or exemptions to heavy fuel oil used as fuel for the production of alumina in the Gardanne region.
   In a letter of 30 December 2001, the Commission notified France of its decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty relating to the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne regio (2). On 7 December 2005, in consequence of this procedure, the Commission adopted Decision 2006/323/EC finding that exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC that is in part incompatible with the common market, and thus ordered the Member States concerned to recover all such aid (3). By action brought on 17 February 2006, France sought to have that decision annulled in part in so far as it affected the exemption granted by France to the Gardanne region (4).
   The Commission decided to extend the formal investigation procedure regarding the exemption from excise duty on heavy mineral oils used for alumina production for the period commencing 1 January 2004. After giving the Member States and the third parties concerned the opportunity to submit their observations on that matter, the Commission adopted Decision C (2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, applied by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (State aid No C 78-79-80/2001). That is the decision which is contested in the present action.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas, the first alleging infringement of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. It submits that the Commission committed an error of law in holding that State aid existed even though not all the conditions required to establish the existence of aid, as laid down in the Altmark case (5), had been fulfilled. The applicant also submits that the decisions authorising exemptions up to 31 December 2006 were adopted by the Council following a proposal from the Commission, which, according to the applicant, should have ensured before making such a proposal that the authorisation would not lead to a distortion of competition. The applicant therefore claims that the Commission could not, on the one hand, propose that the Council adopt a decision authorising an exemption from excise duty and not object to that authorisation being extended until 31 December 2006 and, on the other hand, find that that exemption constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market as of 1 January 2004.
   The second plea raised by the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons in that the contested decision does not set out arguments concerning the market in question or the position of the various undertakings in that market or relating to nature of the harm to competition or the effect on the trade in question.

      (1)  Council Directive of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils

      (2)  Published in OJ 2002 C 30

      (3)  Decision C (2005) 4436 final, State aid Nos C 78-79-80/2001, OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12

      (4)  Case T-56/06 France v Commission, OJ 2006 C 96, p. 21

      (5)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2004] ECR I-7747


title: Case C-239/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/100/EC — Free movement of persons — Amendment of certain directives by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union — Failure to transcribe within the prescribed period)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-239/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Free movement of persons - Amendment of certain directives by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - Failure to transcribe within the prescribed period)
   (2009/C 32/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) by order of that court of 29 January 1998 in the case of BASF AG v. President of the German Patent Office (Case C-44/98)

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/7
decided to terminate the contract, governed by Italian law,        gerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of 21 January
on the ground of breach of contract by the defendant.              1998, received at the Court Registry on 19 February
                                                                   1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Johann
                                                                   Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger
                                                                   Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent
                                                                   Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg) and Jörg
                                                                   Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission               Kärnten     (Independent     Administrative     Board     for
of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie                 Carinthia),    additional    party:   Bundesminister      für
                        Vetroresina SpA                            Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science
                                                                   and Transport), on the following question:
                        (Case C-41/98)
                         (98/C 137/14)
                                                                   are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose            freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court         of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February              preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assited            transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address          abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez            slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
                                                                   observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                   calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
                                                                   the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 77 558,80 together
    with interest, from 1 February 1990 until payment is
    actually made, at a rate of ECU 24,97 per day,
Ð order the defendant to pay to the Commission ECU
    7 700, or any other amount which the Court might
    deem equitable, by way of compensation for damage,
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) by order of
                                                                   that court of 29 January 1998 in the case of BASF AG v.
                                                                              President of the German Patent Office
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-44/98)
The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
                                                                                (98/C 137/16)
repayment of an advance paid under contract BREU-
0114-I(A) for the design of structures manufactured from
composite materials using CAD-CAM techniques, and the
completion of a completely automated production                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
prototype, using the filament-winding' method. The                European      Communities      by    an    order    of    the
Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed             Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) of 29 January
by Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the         1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
defendant.                                                         20 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   BASF AG v. President of the German Patent Office on the
                                                                   following question:
                                                                   is it compatible with the principles of the free movement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-             of goods (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) for a
gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 21 January          patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect
1998 in the cases of Johann Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber            in a Member State which is drafted in a language other
against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes               than the official language of that Member State to be
Salzburg and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger               deemed void ab initio if the patent-holder does not file
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundes-            with the patent office of the Member State in question a
           minister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                   translation of the patent specification in the official
                        (Case C-42/98)                             language of that Member State within three months of the
                                                                   publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the
                         (98/C 137/15)                             mention of the grant of the patent?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-


title: Case T-703/14: Action brought on 2 October 2014  — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/30

         Action brought on 2 October 2014 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission
   (Case T-703/14)
   (2014/C 448/39)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net (DABNET) AEBE (Kaisariani, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               instruct an expert report, in order that there should be examined the reported finding in the audit report of KPMG Certified Auditors AG, which was wrongly and unlawfully accepted by the European Commission, that there is a ‘lack of alternative evidence to confirm the requested personnel costs’. That factor is of crucial importance to the outcome of the case, since the personnel costs incorporate all the indirect costs. The applicant emphasises that the audit report of KPMG AG, in respect of which DABNET AEBE submitted written comments and a request for a re-examination with full supporting evidence, was accepted by the European Commission without a sufficient statement of reasons or any response to the evidence, and

               —

               declare, first, that the debit note No 3241409008, which was sent to the applicant on 31/07/2014 and which requested repayment of EUR 64  574 ,73, in respect of the agreement relating to the FP7-SME-2007-222303 ‘FIREROB’ project on the basis of the audit 12-ΒΑ176-003, is contrary to the contractual obligations of the Commission and is unfounded, second, that the costs which the applicant submitted within the framework of the agreement at issue are eligible costs and, consequently, that the Commission is obliged to issue a credit note for EUR 64  574 ,73.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea is based on the arbitration clause. The applicant maintains, first, that the evidence submitted fully proves the engagement of the applicant’s staff on the ‘FIREROB’ project, second, that at no point in the audit report is it stated that the applicant’s personnel did not perform the work carried out within the framework of the ‘FIREROB’ agreement or that false information was produced by the applicant, and, third, that the applicant undertook to provide personnel for 12,2 person-months and that the applicant provided in total 21,92 person-months without seeking an amendment to the agreed budget.

               2.

               The second plea is based on a claimed abuse of rights. The applicant maintains that the Commission’s request for repayment of the sum of EUR 64  574 ,73, in other word a sum which is almost five times greater than the applicant’s direct subsidy (EUR 13  474 ,00) for work which was optimally performed by the applicant, is disproportionate and contrary to the principle of performance of contracts in good faith.

               3.

               The third plea is based on a claimed infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant maintains that the lawful right was not given to the applicant to submit its lawful objections directly to the auditor appointed by the European Commission and to clarify the unsupported arguments of the author of the draft audit report.

               4.

               The fourth plea is based on the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that Article ΙΙ.24.1 of Annex II to the ‘FIREROB’ agreement gave to the Commission the discretion not to request the payment of damages, given that the applicant produced work which was assessed very positively and in which, according to the European Commission’s Technical Report, scientific results of a very high level were achieved.


title: Case C-406/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 366/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Action brought on 20 October 1999 by the Italian Repub-                       The contested regulation is also vitiated inasmuch as it
lic against the Commission of the European Communities                        infringes Article 40 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                              ment, Article 34 EC), which prohibits any discrimination
                                                                              between producers, and is in breach of the principle of
                         (Case C-403/99)
                                                                              equal treatment.
                         (1999/C 366/36)
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/1999 of 26 July 1999
                                                                             fixing the maximum compensatory aid resulting from the rates
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    for the conversion of the euro into national currency units and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 the exchange rates applicable on 1 July 1999, OJ 1999 L 194,
Communities on 20 October 1999 by the Italian Republic,                      p. 33.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1998 L 349, p. 1.
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by              (3) OJ 1998 L 349, p. 48.
Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address                  (4) OJ 1999 L 98, p. 8.
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested regulation (1);
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-406/99)
(1) The Commission established a measure of general appli-
     cation of the provision laid down by the Council in
     Article 5 of Regulation No 2799/98 (2), applicable to all                                      (1999/C 366/37)
     direct aid affected by the freezing of the conversion rates,
     which did not take into consideration the various operative         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     events giving rise to the entitlement to aid.                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
     In the contested regulation the Commission, without                 Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
     giving the slightest reason for its decision, fixed the level       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     of direct aid where the date of the operative event was             the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
     1 July 1999, and did not increase it by applying the                Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
     weighting provided for in Article 6 of Regulation
     No 2813/98 (3).
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Determination of the maximum amounts of the aid in
     question is contrary to the general determination adopted           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     by the Commission in Article 6 of Regulation No 2813/98                  time-limit the measures necessary in order to comply with
     and is vitiated by the fact that it infringes the aforemen-              Directive 96/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
     tioned Article.                                                          the Council of 3 September 1996 amending Directive
                                                                              67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
     Finally, the reasons which led the Commission to adopt                   and administrative provisions relating to the classification,
     the contested provision are not set out at all in the                    packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the
     preamble to the contested regulation which thus also                     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
     infringes Article 253 EC and is in breach of essential                   obligations under the EC Treaty;
     procedural requirements inasmuch as it is vitiated by a
     lack of a statement of reasons and misuse of powers.                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(2) The unlawfulness of the contested regulation is even more            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
     evident in view of the fact that, although the intention had        C-386/992 (2); the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of the
     been to fix, by way of Regulation No 755/99 (4), of                 directive expired on 1 June 1998.
     12 April 1999, the maximum amounts of direct aid in
     respect of which the dates of the relevant operative events
     were 1 and 3 January 1999, the Commission had instead               (1) OJ L 236 of 18.9.1996, p. 35.
     applied the increase provided for by Article 6 of Regulation        (2) See p. 20 of this Official Journal.
     No 2813/98. The different treatment afforded to aid the
     date of whose operative event was 1 July 1999 is not
     justified in any way.


title: Case C-542/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo
   (Case C-542/15)
   (2016/C 016/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Angela Manzo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU], as well as the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for criteria other than the requirement of two bank references from two separate banks?

               2.

               Must Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences [that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition] relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for alternative documentation and options, as laid down under [EU] legislation?

               3.

               Do [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU] preclude national legislation which de facto prevents any cross-border activity in the field of betting and gambling, irrespective of the form which that activity takes, in particular (in line with the findings in the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2013 in [Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12 Biasci and Others, EU:C:2013:550] in cases in which there are physical checks, for purposes of public security, of the undertaking’s intermediaries present on national territory?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-52/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Greece v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Compensation payments made in 2008 and 2009 by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-52/12 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Compensation payments made in 2008 and 2009 by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2012/C 355/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) for the years 2008 and 2009 (OJ 2012 L 78, p. 21).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 is suspended in so far as that decision obliges the Hellenic Republic to recover the sums paid from the beneficiaries.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2003 in Case T-190/00: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Operating loans — Admissibility — Time-limit — Confirmatory act — Action for annulment — Existing aid or new aid — Principle of tempus regit actum — Export aid — Operating aid — Reasonable time-limit)

text:
24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 21/31
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 November 2003
                      of 27 November 2003
                                                                            in Case T-240/01: Jean-Louis Cougnon v Court of Justice
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-190/00: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                 (Officials — Appointments procedure — Grade A 2 post —
                                                                                Candidature rejected)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/65)
(State aid — Operating loans — Admissibility — Time-
limit — Confirmatory act — Action for annulment —                                              (Language of the case: French)
Existing aid or new aid — Principle of tempus regit actum
  — Export aid — Operating aid — Reasonable time-limit)
                                                                            In Case T-240/01: Jean-Louis Cougnon, an official of the
                                                                            European Parliament, residing in Capellen (Luxembourg),
                          (2004/C 21/64)                                    represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg, against the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         for the annulment of a decision rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                            candidature for the post of Director of Personnel and Finances
                                                                            at the Court of Justice and appointing another candidate —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
                                                                            of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                            D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
In Case T-190/00: Regione Siciliana, represented by F. Quadri,              ment on 5 November 2003, in which it:
avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                       1.    Dismisses the application.
(Agents: V. Di Bucci and D. Triantafyllou) application for
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/319/EC of                             2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme implemented by
Italy for the production, processing and marketing of the
                                                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001
products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty (Sicilian Regional
Law No 68, of 27 September 1995) (OJ 2000 L 110, p. 17),
in so far as it states that the State aid granted under Article 6
of Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 to
agriculture and fisheries enterprises is incompatible with the
common market and requires Italy to withdraw that aid — the
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
J. D. Cooke, A. W. H. Meij and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio                                      of 20 November 2003
González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave the
following judgment on 27 November 2003:                                     in Case T-63/02: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo
                                                                                Poloni v European Central Bank (1)
1.    The application is dismissed;                                         (Officials — European Central Bank staff — Pay — Method
                                                                            of calculating the annual pay adjustment — Consultation of
                                                                            staff committee — Articles 13, 45 and 46 of the Conditions
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred                                of Employment)
      by the Commission.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                            In Case T-63/02: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni,
                                                                            officials of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt-


title: Case T-371/10: Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/62

      Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)
      (Case T-371/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/112)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Amor GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jablonex Group a.s. (Jablonec nad Nisou, Czech Republic)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2010 in Case R 619/2009-2;

                  —

                  Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jablonex Group a.s.

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AMORIKE’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 25 and 26.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amor GmbH.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Internationally-registered word mark ‘AMOR’ for goods in Class 14; Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18; national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Class 25, and national figurative marks which are orange in colour and which contain the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 35 and 42.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case T-196/04: Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/42

         Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-196/04)
   (2004/C 228/97)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited, Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mr D. Gleeson and Mr A. Collins Barristers and Dr V. Power, Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 February 2004 concerning the advantages authorised by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair at the time of its installation at Charleroi.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant company is an airline which specialises in low fares flights. On the occasion of the establishment by the applicant of a base at Brussels South Charleroi Airport the Walloon Region of Belgium implemented a number of aid measures in favour of the applicant. By the contested decision the Commission found that a part of these measures, namely a reduction in airport landing charges as well as discounts on ground handling services, constituted state aid incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87 EC. The same decision declared a number of other aid measures granted by the airport to the applicant compatible with the common market subject to several conditions.
   In support of its application for the annulment of this decision, the applicant submits that the duty to give reasons under Article 253 EC was infringed. In particular the applicant claims that the contested decision fails to provide reasons for treating the Walloon Region and the airport as independent entities, even though the region owns and controls the airport. Further, the applicant claims that no reasons are given for treating the region as a legislator/regulator and not as an airport owner, and that the Commission failed to consider evidence of the behaviour of other airports and failed to assess the airport's business plan in a correct manner.
   The applicant also considers that there has been a misapplication of Article 87 EC because not all elements of the first paragraph of that article were satisfied; the agreement does not amount to State aid when viewed objectively; and the Commission failed to analyse the situation from the perspective of both the alleged benefactor and beneficiary.


title: Case C-331/12: Action brought on 9 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/24

         Action brought on 9 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-331/12)
   2012/C 287/44
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, L. Nicolae and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a periodic penalty payment for failure to comply with its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures for transposing Directive 2009/136, at a daily rate of EUR 56 095,2, payable from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2009/136 had to be transposed expired on 25 May 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11.


title: Case T-318/17: Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/51

         Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
   (Case T-318/17)
   (2017/C 231/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 359 913,75 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 325940 ‘EULOSAM — Design and Manufacturing of Baseline Low-Speed, Low-Sweep Wind Tunnel Model’, plus the amount of EUR 2 105,25 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 31 January and 1 April 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 34,51 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
   The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project EULOSAM and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Accordingly, the consortium terminated the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 359 913,75 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
   The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
   Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.


title: Case C-336/04: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone — Italy) — Banca Popolare FriulAdria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Pordenone (State aid — Decision 2002/581/EC — Tax advantages granted to banks — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question referred for a preliminary ruling identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/22

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone — Italy) — Banca Popolare FriulAdria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Pordenone
   (Case C-336/04) (1)

   (State aid - Decision 2002/581/EC - Tax advantages granted to banks - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Question referred for a preliminary ruling identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
   (2006/C 326/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banca Popolare FriulAdria SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Pordenone
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone — Validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy (notified under document number C(2001) 3955) (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy.

               2.

               Article 87 EC et seq., Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality cannot preclude a national measure ordering the recovery of aid pursuant to a Commission decision which has classified that aid as incompatible with the common market and consideration of which in the light of those same provisions and general principles has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-416/05: Action brought on  25 November 2005  — Olympic Airlines S.A. v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/39

         Action brought on 25 November 2005 — Olympic Airlines S.A. v Commission
   (Case T-416/05)
   (2006/C 60/77)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympic Airlines S.A. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) and (4) and Article 2 of Decision C 11/2004 in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the context of the privatisation of the Greek State airline company, Olympic Airways, the applicant was put into operation. It constitutes a new company, and undertook flight operations, while Olympic Airways — Services S.A. (‘OA’), as the old company was renamed, retained all the other activities, principally ground handling, maintenance and repair of aircraft. By the contested decision, the Commission found that State aid had been paid by Greece to the applicant and OA, that aid being incompatible with the Treaty inter alia on the ground of:
   payment on the part of the applicant for the subleasing of aircraft of rental lower than the lease payment under the principal leasing agreement, at the expense of the Hellenic Republic and OA;

               —

               overvaluing of the applicant's assets at the time that it was set up;

               —

               the Hellenic Republic's display of unceasing tolerance towards OA as regards tax debts and social security contributions.

               —

               In its application, the applicant challenges, first, the part of the decision relating to the aircraft rental which it pays. It maintains that there is no State aid and that consequently the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission did not examine OA's choice to sublease aircraft on the basis of the criterion of a private businessman, nor did it examine whether the applicant obtained any benefit which it would not have obtained on the basis of market conditions. Moreover, it committed a manifest error of assessment in comparing the rental paid by the applicant with that paid by OA under the principal leasing agreement, rather than with that which the applicant would have to pay if it turned to another lessor.

         The applicant relies on similar arguments as regards the part of the contested decision that concerns the case of aircraft under the leasing system. Specifically on that point, the applicant relies inter alia again on manifest error of assessment and on the fact that the Commission wrongly considered that the applicant had entered into leasing agreements, whereas, it maintains, it had entered only into subleasing operation agreements.
   The applicant also relies on a defective statement of reasons, as regards all the above findings of the Commission.
   As regards the part of the decision which leads to the conclusion that the applicant constitutes OA's successor, the applicant claims that the Commission has made an error of assessment, since it did not take account of the fact that OA's activity continued, that there is no interdependence between the two companies and that a privatisation process is underway. The applicant also relies on a defective statement of reasons, because the Commission did not examine the criterion of the commercial logic of the operation, which, in the applicant's view, required the splitting off of the flights branch of OA, the creation of a new company and, subsequently, sale to the private sector
   In connection with the finding in the contested decision of ‘unceasing tolerance’ on the part of Greece towards OA, the applicant claims infringement of Community law as regards the definition of State aid, because the Commission did not examine the conduct of Greece in the light of the criterion of a private creditor. It also claims that there are defects in the statement of reasons required and infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the contested decision requires the applicant to return all unlawful aid granted up to the time it was split off, despite the fact that those amounts related to all the activities of the old company, most of which OA continues to carry out, while the applicant merely provides air transport services.


title: Case C-270/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal
   (Case C-270/16)
   (2016/C 279/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero

      Defendants: Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal

      Question referred

   Does Directive 2000/78 (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee on objective grounds for absences from work, albeit justified but intermittent, which amount to 20 % of the employee’s working hours in two consecutive months, provided that the total absences in the previous 12 months amount to 5 % of working hours or 25 % of working hours in four non-consecutive months within a 12-month period, in the case of an employee who must be treated as disabled within the meaning of the directive when his absence from work was caused by his disability?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-544/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      (Case C-544/14)
      (2015/C 073/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Catherine Gimmig

         Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 10 January 2015.


title: Case T-104/99: Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 226/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
In addition, the applicant considers that the contested decision        The applicants submit that the contested regulation:
is based on reasoning which is irrelevant and erroneous.
                                                                        — infringes essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                            Articles 1(1), 1(2) and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article
                                                                            VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1 and 4.1 of the
                                                                            WTOAD, and in so doing makes a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment of the facts and the law by imposing an
                                                                            anti-dumping duty when it had not correctly and properly
                                                                            determined the product under investigation, and as a result
                                                                            had failed to ensure that the investigation leading to
Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja,                            the contested regulation was supported by a sufficiently
Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie,                          representative proportion of the Community industry
Alpex-Karlino S.A. at Karlino and Zaklady Plyt                              producing the like product. More specifically, the appli-
Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the                     cants state in this respect that hardboard in itself is a too
                        European Union                                      narrow a definition of ’like products’, within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation. As a result, the
                                                                            Community industry producing the like product was
                        (Case T-104/99)                                     incorrectly defined, so that the complainants were not
                                                                            sufficiently representative of Community production of
                                                                            the like product as to constitute a majority of the
                        (1999/C 226/54)                                     industry. The complainants therefore failed to satisfy the
                                                                            requirements of Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
                                                                            Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, Article VI of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                     the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 3(1) of the WTOAD,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  and makes a manifest error of assessment in finding that
Communities on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt                  the Community industry producing the like product under
Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at                 investigation suffered injury. According to the applicants,
Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie,                      the investigation of injury conducted by the Commission
represented by Mr. Vassilios N. Akritidis and Mr Tom Pick,                  concerned only a very small number of complaints, and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                considered hardboard performance only, thus eliminating
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                 from consideration the excellent performances of the thin
                                                                            MDF sector. The Council was not therefore in possession
                                                                            of adequate and reliable indicators from which to draw
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                 any reliable conclusion on injury.
— declare, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
    that the definitive regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No          — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
    194/99) is null and void;                                               Articles 1(1), 3(ó), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation,
                                                                            Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.5, 3.6 and
— order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings               3.7 of the WTOAD, and makes a manifest error of
    be borne by the defendant.                                              assessment in finding that imports of hardboard were the
                                                                            cause of injury to the Community industry producing the
                                                                            like product.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
The applicants in the presents case, private limited companies          is vitiated by infringement of a fundamental procedural
incorporated under the laws of Latvia and Poland respectively,          requirement under Articles 29 and 33(3)(b) of the EU/Latvia
challenge Council Regulation (EC) No 194/99 of 25 January               Europe Agreement, in that it was adopted without due
1999, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             consultation being offered to the Government of Latvia.
hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional
duties imposed (1).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 29.11.1999, p. 16.
Hardboard, the product at issue, is a wood-based panel
product. It forms part of a wider family of several wood-based
panel products which all bear similarities between one another.
Such products are, for example, Medium Density Fibreboard
(MDF), High Density Fibreboard (HDF), chipboard, plywood,
softwood, etc.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España 'Oficemen' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-59/95)

text:
No C 119/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
III. As regards the amount of the fine imposed, the                         6. Imposition of fines without prior warning.
      applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 15 of
      Regulation No 17, alleging that there was a mistake               II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC Treaty
      both in determining the duration of the matters alleged               through lack of evidence and erroneous assessment of
      and the assessment of the seriousness of its alleged                  the applicable legal concepts, as regards:
      participation; and secondly, breach of the principle of
      fairness .                                                            1 . The analysis of the relevant market;
                                                                            2. The Cembureau Agreement;
                                                                            3 . The agreements concerning the exchange of
                                                                                information on prices;
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de
Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana 'Oficemen' against the                     4. The concerted practices concerning the exchange of
         Commission of the European Communities                                 information on prices;
                          (Case T-59/95 )
                                                                            5 . The Spain-Portugal Agreement;
                           ( 95/C 119/44)
                                                                            6 . The agreement concerning the European Task
                  (Language of the case: Spartish)                              Force;
An action against the Commission of the European                            7. The agreement concerning Interciment;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de                               8 . The concerted practices ^s regards Calcestruzzi;
Fabricantes de Espana ('Oficemen'), represented by Jaime                    9 . The concerted practices as regards ECEC.
Folguera Crespo and Ramon Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              III. Infringement of Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation No 17 on
of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                                     the following grounds:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1 . Inadmissibility of imposing general penalties;
— annul           Commission       Decision     94/815/EC        of         2 . Erroneous assessment of the duration of the
    30 November 1984,                                                           infringements;
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 (2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 (2 ),        3 . Erroneous assessment of the gravity of the
    4 ( 3 ) (a ), 5 and 9 of the aforementioned Decision, in so                 infringements;
    far as those Articles refer to Oficemen,
                                                                            4. Breach of the principle 'non bis in idem'.
— as a subsidiary plea, annul the fine imposed on Oficemen
    in Article 9 of the Decision or reduce the amount of the           IV. Misapplication of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b) of Regulation (EEC)
    same ,                                                                  No 2988/74: the alleged offences are time-barred.
— order the Commission to pay the costs, expressly
    including the expenses of lodging and maintaining the
    security for the fine.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Irish Cement Ltd
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant relies upon the following grounds in support                                   (Case T-60/95 )
of its claims :                                                                               ( 95/C 119/45 )
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:                                     (Language of the case: English)
      1 . Incomplete notification of the Statement of
            Objections, limited access to the file and exclusion       An action against the Commission of the European
            from the hearings;                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
      2. Inadequate access to the file;                                1995 by Irish Cement Ltd, represented by Mr. John D.
                                                                       Cooke and Mr John Glackin with and address for service in
      3 . Absence of a statement of reasons for the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Etude Faltz & associés, 6,
            'abandonment' of national objections;                      rue Heinrich Heine, L-1720 Luxembourg.
      4. Failure to consult the Advisory Committee;                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      5 . Inconsistency between the objections and the                 — declare under Article 174 that the Commission's
            Decision;                                                      Decision of 30 November 1994 is void,


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 200, 23.8.2003

text:
6.9.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 213/45
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 213/92)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
         OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
         OJ C 158, 5.7.2003
         OJ C 146, 21.6.2003
         OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
         OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 1997 in Case C-139/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Livia Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Directives 76/207/EEC and 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Calculation of credit for supplemental retirement contributions)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            ran                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/9
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 30 January 1997                                                   of 30 January 1997
in Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 (references for                      in Case C-139/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
preliminary rulings from the Landessozialgericht Nord                 the Pretura Circondariale di Genova ): Livia Balestra v.
rhein-Westfalen): Fritz Stober ( C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel                   Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ) ( ] )
     Piosa Pereira ( C-5/95 ) v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (')
                                                                       (Directives 76/207/EEC and 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment
(Social security — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                 for men       and    women     —   Calculation   of credit for
                         — Persons covered)                                         supplemental retirement contributions)
                             ( 97/C 74/15 )                                                       ( 97/C 74/16 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 : two references to the
                                                                       In Case C- 13 9/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine                  of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Geno
Westphalia Higher Social Court) ( Germany ) for a                      va ( District Magistrate's Court, Genoa ) ( Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court between Livia Balestra and Istituto Nazionale della
court between Fritz Stober ( C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel
Piosa Pereira ( C-5/95 ) and Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on             Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) — on the interpretation of
the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/               Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
 71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security               implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
 schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons                  men and women as regards access to employment,
 and to members of their families moving within the                     vocational training and promotion, and working
 Community, as amended and updated by Council                           conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) and of
                                                                        Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
 Regulation ( EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No
 L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as amended by Council                    progresssive implementation of the principle of equal
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989 ( OJ                  treatment for men and women in matters of social security
 No L 331 , 16 . 11 . 1989, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth                  ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979, p. 24 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                       Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the First
 ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                   Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
 D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A.              D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M.
 La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                   Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 30 January 1997, in which it has ruled:                                given a judgment on 30 January 1997, in which it has
                                                                        ruled as follows :
 For the purposes of the payment of family benefits under
 German legislation, Article 73 of Council Regulation                    Where, pursuant to Article 7 (1 ) (a) of Council Directive
 (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                  79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
 social security schemes to employed persons, to self                  implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
 employed persons and to members of their families                      men and women in matters of social security, a Member
 moving within the Community, as amended and updated                    State has set pensionable ages which differ according to
 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983,                sex, that provision also allows it to provide that
 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of                    employees of an undertaking declared to be in critical
 30 October 1989, must be interpreted as covering only                   difficulty may be credited with a maximum of five years '
 self-employed persons complying with the definition                    supplemental retirement contributions starting from their
 provided by the combined provisions of Article 1 (a) (ii)               entry into early retirement until the date on which they
 and point I (C) (b) of Annex I of that Regulation.                      reach the age at which they are entitled to a retirement
 However, national rules which cause the taking of a self               pension, that is to say 55 years in the case of women and
 employed person 's children into account when calculating               60 years in the case of men, since the difference relating to
 family allowances to be dependent upon their residing in                sex in the method of calculating early-retirement benefits
  that Member State are contrary to Article 52 of the EC                 is objectively and necessarily linked to the setting of
  Treaty.                                                                pensionable ages which differ for men and women.
  (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         C ) OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .


title: Case T-218/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/18

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v Commission
   (Case T-218/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 71/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia) (represented initially by: G. Boscolo, and subsequently by A. Boscolo, lawyers); and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               3.

               Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. are to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.


title: Case T-332/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ — Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM
   (Case T-332/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ - Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 65/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Viaguara S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, M. Mazurek and J. Dudzik, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially M. Hawkins, Solicitor, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard and M. Fowler, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Viaguara S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case F-88/08: Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Vandeuren v European Training Foundation

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/44

         Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Vandeuren v European Training Foundation
   (Case F-88/08)
   (2008/C 327/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Monique Vandeuren (Pino Torinese, Italy) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the defendant's decision to dismiss the applicant, and declaration that the European Training Foundation be ordered to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 23 October 2007 to dismiss the applicant adopted by the European Training Foundation;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the explicit decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 125 000 by way of material damages;

               —

               order the European Training Foundation to pay the amount of EUR 50 000 by way of non-material damages;

               —

               order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 1999 in Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC)

text:
8.1.2000                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 6/7
J. Grunwald) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                       91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray (Rappor-               1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC
teur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                 of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28) — the Court (Fourth
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1999,                 Chamber), composed of: J.L. Murray, acting as President of the
in which it:                                                                 Fourth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schint-
                                                                             gen, Judges; P: Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October
     15 October 1997 in Case T-331/94 IPK v Commission in so                 1999 in which it has ruled:
     far as it dismissed the claim of IPK-München GmbH for
     annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 1994 to              1. ‘Temporary storage’ of waste must be distinguished from ‘storage
     refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance granted to                 pending’ further operations and is not a ‘management operation’
     support a project to create a database of information on ecological          within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Directive
     tourism in Europe, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs;               75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
     judgment on the claim of IPK-München GmbH for annulment                 2. The competent national authorities are required, with regard to
     of the decision of 3 August 1994;                                            temporary storage operations, to ensure that the obligations
                                                                                arising from Article 4 of Directive 75/442 are complied with.
3. Orders the costs to be reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
( 1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 October 1999
                          of 5 October 1999
                                                                             in Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98 (references for a                                                ties v Ireland (1)
preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Udine): Criminal
proceedings against Paolo Lirussi (C-175/98) and Frances-
                       ca Bizzaro (C-177/98) (1)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/100/EEC)
(Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC —
Definition of temporary storage, pending collection, on the                                             (2000/C 6/14)
site where it is produced — Definition of waste management)
                             (2000/C 6/13)                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             In Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — application
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published       for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                     in the European Court Reports)                          and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
In Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98: references to the                     rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                    copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346,
EC) from the Pretore di Udine (Italy) for a preliminary ruling               p. 61) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court between                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
Paolo Lirussi (Case C-175/98) and Francesca Bizzaro (Case                    — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
C-177/98) — on the interpretation of Council Directive                       Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,                          and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R.
p. 39), as amended by Council Directive (EEC) 91/156/EEC of                  Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 1999,
18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Council Directive                   in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/8                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       2. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty preclude a provision
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                  of national law such as the first sentence of the fourth
    comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November                       subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost 8 of the Gebührengesetz.
    1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
    related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, Ireland
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.               (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                             Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities against Hitesys
                                                                                SpA
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/16)
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                             An action against Hitesys SpA, whose registered office is in
in Case C-439/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Aprilia, Latina (Italy), was brought before the Court of Justice
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-                        of the European Communities on 23 September 1999 by the
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                  land (1)                                   Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and Mr Dal
                                                                             Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
(Loan agreements — Stamp duty — Rules governing impo-                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                     sition — Discrimination)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              (2000/C 6/15)
                                                                             1. Order Hitesys SpA, the defendant company, to repay EUR
                                                                                132 500 by way of principal amount and EUR 61 032,8
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                by way of interest at 8,25 %, for the period running from
                                                                                8 January 1994 to 8 September 1999, totalling EUR
                                                                                194 443,7, to which must be added EUR 30 364 in default
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                interest in respect of each additional day of delay until full
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                payment is made with respect to the financing under
                                                                                contract No JOU2-CT93-0417;
In Case C-439/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Verwaltungsgerichts-               2. order Hitesys to pay the costs.
hof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty                  Pleas and main arguments
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), and of Articles 1 and 4
of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                      The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,                   repayment of monies advanced in view of contract No
p. 5) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,                JOU2-CT93-0417 for a research project in the field of the
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the                  non-nuclear energy-Joule II (1991-1994) programme adopted
Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,                    by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (1). The
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed by
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the
on 14 October 1999, in which it held that:                                   defendant.
1. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the EC Treaty [now
    Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) and (3) EC] are to be interpreted         (1) Council Decision 91/484/EEC of 9 September 1991 (OJ 1991
    as not precluding the imposition of duty, under a national                   L 257, p. 37).
    provision such as the first subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost
    8 of the Gebührengesetz, on loans contracted in another Member
    State.