title: Case C-24/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft. v Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft. v Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter
   (Case C-24/13)
   2013/C 156/27
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dél-Zempléni Nektár Leader Nonprofit kft.

      Defendant: Vidékfejlesztési Miniszter

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) and Commission Regulation No 1974/2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that local action groups set up in the context of agricultural aid can operate only in a form of organisation determined by law in a given Member State?

               2.

               Can a distinction be made on the basis of the above regulations in such a way that the legislature of the Member State gives recognition only to local action groups constituted as certain legal forms of organisation, laying down conditions which are different from or stricter than those in Article 62[1] of Regulation No 1698/2005?

               3.

               Is it sufficient under the above regulations if local action groups in a Member State fulfil only the requirements laid down in Article 62[1] of Regulation No 1698/2005? May the Member State restrict that provision by imposing other formal or legal obligations on the bodies which meet the requirements laid down in Article 62[1] of Regulation No 1698/2005?

               4.

               Can the above regulations be interpreted as meaning that the decision to abolish local action groups which meet the requirements imposed by Article 62(1) of Regulation No 1698/2005 and which complied with all the relevant national and Community legislation throughout the time they were operating falls within the margin of discretion of a Member State and as permitting only the operation of local action groups which have a new legal form?

               5.

               Can the above regulations be interpreted as meaning that, as regards aid programmes which are already under way or during the programming period, a Member State may itself also alter the legal framework for the operation of local action groups?

               6.

               How must the above regulations be interpreted in the event that local action groups which have hitherto conducted their activities efficiently and legally are abolished? What happens in such a case to the obligations undertaken and the rights acquired by local action groups, having particular regard to the whole group of bodies affected by the abolition?

               7.

               Can Article 62(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) be interpreted as meaning that a provision is acceptable and complies with the law if, under it, a Member State requires Leader local action groups which take the form of non-profit companies to convert into associations within a year on the ground that only the association as a legal form of company organisation can properly guarantee the creation of a network between local members, given that, under the applicable Hungarian law, the fundamental aim of a company is the obtaining of profits and the involvement of economic interests prevents the attraction of the public and the recruitment of new members?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15).


title: Case C-6/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — P Oy (State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Condition of ‘selectivity’ — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(i) — Existing aid — National legislation concerning corporate income tax — Deductibility of losses sustained — Non-deductibility in the case of change of ownership — Authorisation of derogations — Degree of latitude of the tax authorities)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — P Oy
   (Case C-6/12) (1)

   (State aid - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - Condition of ‘selectivity’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) - Existing aid - National legislation concerning corporate income tax - Deductibility of losses sustained - Non-deductibility in the case of change of ownership - Authorisation of derogations - Degree of latitude of the tax authorities)
   2013/C 260/17
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P Oy

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU — System of deduction of companies’ losses — Legislation on corporate income tax providing that losses sustained during one tax year may be carried forward and deducted from any profit made in the following tax years — Deduction of losses in the case of a change of ownership during the year in which the losses are sustained or thereafter excluded — Exception to the rule excluding deduction for good reasons to do with the continuation of the activities of the company in question

      Operative part

               1.

               A tax regime such as that at issue in the main proceedings may satisfy the condition of selectivity as an element of the concept of ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it were to be established that the reference system, namely, the ‘normal’ system, consists in a prohibition of the deduction of losses in the case of a change of ownership for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 122 of Law No 1535/1992 of 30 December 1992 on income tax (Tuloverolaki), in relation to which the authorisation procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Paragraph 122 would constitute an exception. Such a regime may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it forms part, but justification is not possible if the competent national authorities, so far as concerns authorisation to derogate from the prohibition of the deduction of losses, have discretion that empowers them to base authorisation decisions on criteria unrelated to that tax regime. However, the Court does not have sufficient information before it to rule definitively on those classifications.

               2.

               Article 108(3) TFEU does not preclude a tax regime such as that provided for in the first and third subparagraphs of Paragraph 122 of Law No 1535/1992, if that regime should be classified as ‘State aid’, from continuing to be applied in the Member State which established it because it grants ‘existing’ aid, without prejudice to the competence of the European Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case T-324/02: Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley against Council of the European Union

text:
C 7/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.1.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     annul the decision of 30 January 2002 of the Director
      to award the applicant 0.58 promotion points in respect                   General of Directorate General A of the Council to
      of 1998 and to award only one promotion point per year                    terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the
      in respect of 1999 and 2000;                                              Staff Regulations to fill the post of Language Adviser in
                                                                                the English and Irish Language Division and to proceed
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     to the next stage, namely the organisation of an internal
                                                                                competition under Article 29(1)(b);
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay to the applicant the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 EUR 10 000 000 by way of compensation for material
                                                                                and non-material damage;
The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing
authority to award her 0.58 promotion points in respect of                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
1998 and to award her only one promotion point per year in
respect of 1999 and 2000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that no staff report has been drawn up
for her throughout the period in which she worked for the
defendant as a member of the temporary staff, that is to say              By judgment of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99, the Court
from 1 June to 30 November 1998. Nor was any report                       of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Council of
drawn up in her respect during her probation period (from                 15 December 1998 appointing Ms K to the post of language
1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999). Consequently, only                    adviser in the English Language Division and rejecting the
the analytical assessments in the staff report for the period             candidature of the applicant for the said post. The Council
from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2000 were taken                      appealed that judgment. The appeal was held manifestly
into consideration, which prevented the appointing authority              inadmissible by order of the Court of Justice of
from taking account of the applicant’s ‘merits’ as set out in the         13 December 2001.
general assessment and in the reporting officer’s observations.
                                                                          The applicant claims that, in consequence of that judgment,
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:                          the Council was obliged to re-examine his application for the
                                                                          post in question. By failing to carry out such re-examination,
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                the Council has, in the applicant’s view, infringed Article 233
                                                                          of the EC Treaty. The applicant further alleges manifest error
—     infringement of paragraph 5 of the ‘Instructions relatives          of assessment and misuse of powers.
      aux promotions’ appended to the decision of the Court
      of 18 October 2000;
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri
                                                                          Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis
                                                                          and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley
            against Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-332/02)
                        (Case T-324/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/45)
                         (2003/C 7/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedi-
Communities on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley, residing                 zionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Albert Cool-                 Danielis and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, represent-
en, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, avocats.                         ed by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.


title: Case F-95/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/84

         Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-95/15)
   (2015/C 294/102)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the final decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 6 November 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service under the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-111/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — MasterCard and Others v Commission (Competition — Decision by an association of undertakings — Market for the provision of debit, charge and credit card transaction acquiring services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Multilateral fallback interchange fees — Article 81(1) and (3) EC — Concept of ancillary restriction — No objective necessity — Restriction of competition by effect — Conditions for the grant of an individual exemption — Rights of the defence — Remedy — Periodic penalty payment — Statement of reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
   (Case T-111/08) (1)

   (Competition - Decision by an association of undertakings - Market for the provision of debit, charge and credit card transaction acquiring services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Multilateral fallback interchange fees - Article 81(1) and (3) EC - Concept of ancillary restriction - No objective necessity - Restriction of competition by effect - Conditions for the grant of an individual exemption - Rights of the defence - Remedy - Periodic penalty payment - Statement of reasons - Proportionality)
   2012/C 200/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington); MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy, S. McInnes, lawyers, and T. Sharpe QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Arbault, N. Khan and V. Bottka and subsequently by N. Khan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: F. Lorente Hurtado, P. Vidal Martínez and A. Rodriguez Encinas, lawyers); Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Liddell, Solicitor, D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, N. Green QC and M. Hoskins, Barrister); HSBC Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Coleman and P. Scott, Solicitors and R. Thompson QC); Bank of Scotland plc (Edinburgh) (represented: initially by S. Kim, K. Gordon and C. Hutton, Solicitors, and subsequently by J. Flynn QC, E. McKnight and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors); Lloyds TSB Bank plc (London) (represented by: E. McKnight, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and J. Flynn QC); MBNA Europe Bank Ltd (Chester, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Davis, Solicitor and J. Swift QC)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, acting as Agents, subsequently by I. Rao, S. Ossowski and F. Penlington, and finally by I. Rao, S. Ossowski and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, and by J. Turner QC and J. Holmes, Barrister); British Retail Consortium (London) (represented by: P. Crockford, Solicitor, and A. Robertson, Barrister); EuroCommerce AISBL (Brussels, Belgium); (represented: initially by F. Tuytschaever and F. Wijckmans and subsequently by F. Wijckmans and J. Stuyck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision C(2007) 6474 final of 19 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases COMP/34.579 — MasterCard, COMP/36.518 — EuroCommerce, COMP/38.580 — Commercial Cards), and, in the alternative, for annulment of Articles 3 to 5 and 7 of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc., and MasterCard Europe to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders British Retail Consortium and EuroCommerce AISBL to bear their own costs;

               5.

               Orders Banco Santander, SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, HSBC Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc and MBNA Europe Bank Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-344/12: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2014  — Virgin Atlantic Airways v Commission

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/25

         Order of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Virgin Atlantic Airways v Commission
   (Case T-344/12) (1)

   2014/C 329/37
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case F-3/14: Action brought on 10th January 2014 — ZZ v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/27

         Action brought on 10th January 2014 — ZZ v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
   (Case F-3/14)
   2014/C 85/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. T. Bontinck, Ms A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of EASA’s decision to renew the contract of the applicant for only one year instead of five years, in violation of article 39 of Regulation (EC) 216/2008/CE.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision dated March 12th, 2013 of the Management Board to extend his contract for only one year;

               —

               and therefore, annul the amendment no 2 to his contract of employment which renew the contract for a one year period;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-349/08 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2008 by Dr Hans Kronberger against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Dr Hans Kronberger v European Parliament

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/19

         Appeal brought on 1 August 2008 by Dr Hans Kronberger against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Dr Hans Kronberger v European Parliament
   (Case C-349/08 P)
   2009/C 205/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Dr Hans Kronberger (represented by: W. Weh, Rechtsanwalt)
   Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   Dr Hans Kronberger brought an appeal on 1 August 2008 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 in Case T-18/07 Dr Hans Kronberger v European Parliament. The appellant is represented by Dr Wilfried Ludwig Weh, Rechtsanwalt, of Wolfeggstraße 1, AT-6900 Bregenz.
   By Order of 19 May 2009 the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay his own costs.


C 83/16                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            le Strade v SCA RL CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti
                                                                           Ravenna, SpA ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa
                                                                           Toto e Toto.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 28 October 2001.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-337/00 ( 1)
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                                              (2003/C 83/32)
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-80/03)
                                                                           By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           (2003/C 83/30)
                                                                           from the register of Case C-337/00: Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
21 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                       Removal from the register of Case C-188/01 ( 1)
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 1999/93/EC ( 1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on                                          (2003/C 83/33)
      a Community framework for electronic signatures, or in
      any event by failing to inform the Commission of those
      provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-188/01 (Reference for a preliminary
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg):
                                                                           Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
The period within which the measures had to be adopted
expired on 19 July 2001.
( 1) OJ L 13 of 19.1.2000, p. 12.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-375/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/34)
        Removal from the register of Case C-173/00 ( 1)
                                                                           By order of 15 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                           (2003/C 83/31)                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-375/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
By order of 14 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                    (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
from the register of Case C-173/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS — Ente Nazionale per


title: Case T-462/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Pilkington Group v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of request for confidential treatment of information allegedly covered by business secrecy — Application for interim measures — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/18

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Pilkington Group v Commission
   (Case T-462/12 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of request for confidential treatment of information allegedly covered by business secrecy - Application for interim measures - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 141/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and G. Meeßen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass), and application for interim measures seeking the continuation of the confidential treatment accorded to certain information relating to the applicant in respect of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The applications of HUK-Coburg, LVM, VHV and Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung for leave to intervene are dismissed.

               2.

               Operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass) is suspended in relation to two categories of information, as referred to in point 6 of Decision C(2012) 5718 final, concerning, first, customer names, product names or descriptions of products, as well as any other information which might identify individual customers and, second, the number of parts supplied by Pilkington Group, the share of the business of a particular car manufacturer, pricing calculations, price changes etc.

               3.

               The Commission is ordered to refrain from publishing a version of its Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass) which is more complete, in relation to the information in the two categories referred to in point 2 above, than that published in February 2010 on the Commission’s website.

               4.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed as to the remainder.

               5.

               The costs are reserved.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 July 1998 in Case T-73/98 R: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Proceedings for interim measures - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None)

text:
10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/13
3. suspends execution of that Commission Decision until             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    such time as the Court of First Instance has given final        Communities on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
    judgment on the main action;                                    GmbH and others, Stuttgart (Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany), represented by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt,
4. reserves the costs.                                              Hamburg (Germany), with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                                                                    Philippe II.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                               Ð declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the applicants for the losses suffered and/or to be
                       of 15 July 1998                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of the application
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the
in Case T-73/98 R: SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v.                common organisation of the market in bananas, in
         Commission of the European Communities                         particular Articles 17 to 19 and 21(2) thereof, and in
(State aid Ð Proceedings for interim measures Ð                         consequence of the application of Commission
  Intervention Ð Interim measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                     Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 laying down detailed
                                                                        rules for the application of the arrangements for
                        (98/C 312/35)                                   importing bananas into the Community, inasmuch as,
                                                                        in accordance with those regulations, and in particular
               (Language of the case: French)                           Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93:
In Case T-73/98 R SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA,                   Ð the inclusion of the applicants in the closed
incorporated in Engis (Belgium), represented by Bernard                     category of Category A' market operators
van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                       (Article 2(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93) is
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        conditional on their having marketed third-country
Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against the Commission                       bananas during the years 1989 to 1991,
of the European Communities (Agent: Dimitris
Triantafyllou) Ð application for operation of Commission                Ð the scope of the import licences to which the
Decision SG (98) D631 on State aid cases N 198/97 and                       applicants are entitled within the framework of
NN 81/97 to be suspended Ð Germany Ð Financial                              Category A' is conditional on the reference
measures in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH,                      quantities accumulated by the applicants during
and for any other form of interim measure, the President                    the years 1989 to 1991, and
of the Court made an order on 15 July 1998 in which he:
                                                                        Ð market operators who, during the period from
1. allowed the Federal Republic of Germany to intervene                     1989 to 1991, were established in the former
    in support of the Commission;                                           German Democratic Republic were unable, prior
                                                                            to the point in time at which the territory of the
2. allowed the application by SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-                    former German Democratic Republic became part
    Rupel SA for certain parts of its application for                       of the then European Economic Community
    suspension of operation to be treated as confidential                   (German reunification on 3 October 1990), to
    for the interlocutory stage of the proceedings;                         accumulate such quantities,
3. dismissed the application for interim measures;                  Ð order the parties to indicate, within a given period (to
                                                                        be prescribed by the Court) after delivery of its
                                                                        judgment, the amounts which they have agreed upon
4. reserved judgment on costs.                                          as being payable, or, if no such agreement is reached,
                                                                        order them to submit to the Court, within that period,
                                                                        their quantified proposals as to the sums which should
                                                                        be paid,
                                                                    Ð reserve its decision as to costs.
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
GmbH and Others against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                       (Case T-99/98)
                                                                    The applicants, who are members of the Atlanta Group,
                        (98/C 312/36)
                                                                    are established in the territory of the former German
                                                                    Democratic Republic, or were established there during the
              (Language of the case: German)                        period from 1989 to 1991. They are claiming inter alia
                                                                    compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them
An action against the Council of the European Union and             as a result of the fact that, under the Community rules on
the Commission of the European Communities was                      the organisation of the market, they were not able to


title: Case C-527/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 213, 214 and 273 — Identification of taxable persons subject to VAT — Refusal to assign a VAT identification number on the ground that the taxable person is not in possession of the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the declared economic activity — Legality — Countering tax evasion — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Ablessio SIA
   (Case C-527/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 213, 214 and 273 - Identification of taxable persons subject to VAT - Refusal to assign a VAT identification number on the ground that the taxable person is not in possession of the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the declared economic activity - Legality - Countering tax evasion - Principle of proportionality)
   2013/C 141/10
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant: Ablessio SIA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 214 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 273 of that directive — National legislation providing the possibility to refuse registration on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes if the taxable person does not provide information or provides false information concerning his material, technical and financial capacity to carry out the declared economic activity — Refusal to register a company on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes on the ground that it is not able to carry out the declared economic activity.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 213, 214 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the tax authority of a Member State may not refuse to assign a value added tax identification number to a company solely on the ground that, in the opinion of that authority, the company does not have at its disposal the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the economic activity declared, and that the owner of the shares in that company has already obtained, on various occasions, such an identification number for companies which never carried out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred immediately after obtaining the individual number, where the tax authority concerned has not established, on the basis of objective factors, that there is sound evidence leading to the suspicion that the value added tax identification number assigned will be used fraudulently. It is for the referring court to assess whether that tax authority provided serious evidence of the existence of a risk of tax evasion in the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case T-558/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Eni v Commission (Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Proof of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Equal treatment — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringement — Obligation to state reasons — Attenuating circumstances — Substantially reduced participation — Infringement committed by negligence — Rights of the defence — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Eni v Commission
   (Case T-558/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Proof of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Equal treatment - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Attenuating circumstances - Substantially reduced participation - Infringement committed by negligence - Rights of the defence - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 046/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, D. Durante, G. Rizza, S. Valentino and L. Bellia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, an application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes), and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Eni SpA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) at EUR 1 8 2 00  000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Eni. Eni shall bear half of its own costs and half of those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-199/04 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (Dumping — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Interest in bringing proceedings — Initiation of the investigation — Constructed normal value — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard at a hearing — Comparison between the normal value and the export price — Drawback of import duties — Adjustment — Injury — Causal link — WTO law)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council
   (Case T-199/04 RENV) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Interest in bringing proceedings - Initiation of the investigation - Constructed normal value - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard at a hearing - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Drawback of import duties - Adjustment - Injury - Causal link - WTO law))
   (2017/C 038/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Stobiecka Kuik)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2001 in Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of workers — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Private security activities — Private security firms and private sworn security guards — Nationality conditions)

text:
C 200/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
2.    Orders D and the Kingdom of Sweden jointly and severally to           Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
      pay the costs;                                                        composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                            (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans,
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the                  Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
      Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            31 May 2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                   1.    Declares that, by providing that:
                                                                                —    private security work (including surveillante or care-
                                                                                taking of movable property and buildings) may be
                                                                                carried out in Italy, subject to licence, only by private
                                                                                security firms holding Italian nationality;
                                                                                —    only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may
                                                                                be employed as sworn private security guards, the
                                                                                Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC);
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                           of 31 May 2001
in Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free                                               (Fifth Chamber)
movement of workers — Freedom of establishment —
Freedom to provide services — Private security activities —                                            of 7 June 2001
Private security firms and private sworn security guards —
                       Nationality conditions)
                                                                            in Case C-479/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): CBA Computer Handels-
                           (2001/C 200/38)                                  und Beteiligungs GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer
                                                                                AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (1)
                                                                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        classification of computer ‘sound cards’ — Classification in
                                                                            the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of Regulations (EC)
                                                                                Nos 1153/97 and 2086/97)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 200/39)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: German)
(Agents: initially by A. Aresu and M. Patakia and subsequently
by E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
U. Leanza assisted initially by P.G. Ferri and subsequently by              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
F. Quadri) — application for a declaration that, by providing                                  in the European Court Reports)
that:
                                                                            In Case C-479/99: reference to the Court under Article
—     private security work (including surveillance or caretaking           234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a
      of movable property and buildings) may be carried out in              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private security firms’           court between CBA Computer Handels- und Beteiligungs
      holding Italian nationality;                                          GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer AG and Hauptzollamt
                                                                            Aachen — on the interpretation of headings 8471, 8473 and
—     only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may be               8543 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Cus-
      employed as ‘sworn private security guards’,                          toms Tariff, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)


               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/1

         (2008/C 22/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

      OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

      OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case C-259/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/12

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-259/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, agent, R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, European Commission, Maxcom Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The Council respectfully requests the Court:

               —

               that the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Council on 23 March 2015, in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union be set aside;

               —

               that the application at first instance brought by Chin Haur Indonesia, PT for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1) be rejected; and

               —

               that Chin Haur Indonesia, PT be ordered to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               that the case be referred back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               that costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal be reserved.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court misinterprets Article 13 (1) of the Basic Regulation (2) when concluding that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to decide that the Applicant was engaged in transhipment. The General Court's interpretation of the conditions that must be met by individual companies in order to be exempted from the extended measures is in contradiction to the structure of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation (first plea).
   The General Court's finding, that on the basis of the documents before the Court, the Council had no evidence from which it could expressly conclude in the Contested Regulation that the Applicant was involved in transshipment operations, lacks proper reasoning. Moreover, and contrary to the judgment under appeal, given that transhipment was correctly demonstrated at country level and that the Applicant's exemption request was not justified, the only conclusion the Council, and subsequently the General Court, could have drawn from the facts was that the Applicant has been involved in transhipment. The General Court, in drawing a different conclusion, distorted the facts (second plea).

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

      OJ L 153, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

      OJ L 343, p. 51


title: Case C-488/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 4 November 2014  — SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 4 November 2014 — SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others
   (Case C-488/14)
   (2015/C 026/12)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA

      Defendants: RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft, SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AZVI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (1) and Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (2) , as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts be interpreted as precluding legislation which makes access to review procedures of decisions of contracting authorities subject to an obligation to deposit beforehand a ‘good conduct guarantee’ such as that governed by Articles 271a and 271b of Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.

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


title: Case C-25/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of Katharina Rinke against Ärtztekammer Hamburg

text:
20.4.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 97/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção (Fiscal Court
tungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of                of First Instance, Lisbon, 3rd Division, 2nd Chamber) of
     Katharina Rinke against Ärtztekammer Hamburg                     27 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 4 Febru-
                                                                       ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recheio Cash
                                                                       & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo Nacional de
                          (Case C-25/02)
                                                                       Pessoas Colectivas on the following questions:
                          (2002/C 97/05)                               1.    Is it contrary to Community law for a Member State to
                                                                             fix a limitation period, for actions for repayment of taxes
                                                                             levied in breach of Community law, of 90 days reckoned
                                                                             from the expiry of the period for voluntary payment, so
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       that the exercise of the right to reimbursement is made
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                    excessively difficult?
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a               2.    If so, what is the minimum period that may be considered
preliminary ruling in the case of Katharina Rinke against                    compatible with the rule that exercise of that right must
Ärtztekammer Hamburg (the Hamburg Chamber of Phys-                          not be made excessively difficult?
icians) on the following questions:
                                                                       3.    What are the criteria to be used to fix that period?
1.    Does the requirement laid down in Directives
      86/457/EEC (1) and 93/16/EEC (2), to the effect that
      certain components of the specific training in general
      medical practice — completion of which confers the right
      to use the title ‘general medical practitioner’ — must be
      undertaken full-time, constitute indirect discrimination
      on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      76/207/EEC (3)?                                                  Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza
                                                                       by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:                              Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against
                                                                       Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero — Direzione
      (a)   How is the incompatibility of Directive 76/207/EEC         Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del
            on the one hand with Directives 86/457/EEC and                           Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II
            93/16/EEC on the other to be resolved?
                                                                                (Case C-37/02 and C-38/02)
      (b) Does the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
            grounds of sex constitute a basic unwritten right
            under Community law that overrides any conflicting                                   (2002/C 97/07)
            rule in secondary legislation?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
                                                                       European Communities by orders of the Tribunale Amminis-
(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         trativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza (Regional
                                                                       Administrative Court of the Veneto — Third Chamber) of
                                                                       16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02)
                                                                       against Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero (Ministry of
                                                                       Foreign Trade) — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commer-
                                                                       ciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-              the following questions:
tario de 1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção
by order of 27 December 2001 in the case of Recheio                    (1) Are Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 31 of Regulation (EC)
Cash & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo                         No 896/2001 (1) incompatible, in primis, with the Treaty,
                 Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas                              in particular Article 7 (formerly Article 4) thereof, and
                                                                             with the other provisions and principles enshrined in that
                                                                             Treaty with regard to the principle of the division of
                          (Case C-30/02)                                     functions and powers between the Community institu-
                                                                             tions (in particular between the Council and the Commis-
                          (2002/C 97/06)                                     sion)?
                                                                       (2) Are those same Articles of Regulation 896/2001 contrary
                                                                             to the principle that laws should not have retrospective
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       effect and to the related principles of the protection of
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributario de                  legitimate expectations and legal certainty?


title: Removal from the register of Case C-195/94

text:
6 . 7 . 96              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 197/ 17
( a ) insofar as it is based, as it purports to be, on the                         justification for a temporary ban on the export from the
         perceived need to allay concern among consumers in                        United Kingdom of all the items mentioned in Article 1
         order to protect the market for beef generally in                          of the contested Decision, there is no longer any
         Member States, the export ban is not within the scope                     justification for the continuation of the export ban
         of the Commission's powers or the margin of discretion                    either at all or in relation to products recognized by
         allowed to it;                                                             independent scientific bodies as being safe .
( b ) having regard in particular to the other measures                    (') Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on
         adopted in the United Kingdom and at the Community                       emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
         level to deal with BSE, the export ban is not, and cannot                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p. 47).
         be, justified on the basis of any serious hazard to animal        ( 2 ) Commission Decision 94/474/EEC of 27 July 1994 concerning
                                                                                certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform
         or human health;
                                                                                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 194, 29. 7. 1994, p. 96 ).
                                                                           ( 3 ) Council      Directive      89/662/EEC of 11   December  1989
(c ) it is therefore an unlawful impediment to the free                           concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
                                                                                view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No L 395 ,
         movement of goods within the Community;                                  30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 13 ).
                                                                           (4 ) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
( d ) the adoption of the export ban and its continuance                          veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in
                                                                                intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products
         constitute a misuse of powers ;                                          with a view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No
                                                                                L 224 , 18 . 8 . 1990, p . 29 ).
( e ) the export ban is disproportionate whether it was
         imposed or is being maintained in order to allay
         concern among consumers or in order to protect
         against a perceived threat to animal or human
         health;
 ( f) the export ban discriminates between consumers in the                Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-261/94 and
         United Kingdom and consumers in other Member                                                          C-262/94 ( l )
         States and between producers in the United Kingdom                                                  ( 96/C 197/35 )
         and producers in other Member States, contrary to
         Articles 6 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                            By order of 7 February 1996 , the President of the Court of
 (g) the export ban is inconsistent with the objectives of the             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
          Common Agricultural Policy set out in Article 39 ( 1 ) of         from the Register of Joined Cases C-261 /94 and C-262/94 :
         the EC Treaty;                                                     ( References for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice
                                                                            Conciliatore di Trieste ): Centralsped Sri v . Amministrazione
                                                                            delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-261 /94 ) and For Trans Sri v .
 ( h ) the contested Decision in various respects infringes the             Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-262/94 ).
          principle of legal certainty, fails to state the reasons for
          its adoption and, as the Commission contends, covers
                                                                            (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
          products that, as the United Kingdom contends, fall
          outside the scope of the powers purportedly exercised
          by the Commission;
  ( i ) by maintaining the contested Decision in force, the
          contested acts are vitiated by the same defects;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C- 1 9 5/94 ( )
  (j ) Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and Directive 90/425/EEC ( 4 )
          are unlawful and therefore inapplicable if and insofar                                              ( 96/C 197/36 )
          as they purport to provide the legal basis for the
          extension of the export ban to products falling outside
          the scope of the powers purportedly exercised by the               By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
           Commission;
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the Register of Case C-l 95/94 (Reference for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Koblenz ): José
   ( k ) it is manifest that the export ban is and was                       Oliveira-Neves v . Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
           counterproductive and is not in the interests of any
           Member State;
                                                                             f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
   (1)     even if, contrary to the United Kingdom's primary
           submission, there was a sufficient and a lawful


title: Case C-326/06: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-326/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/61)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case T-850/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/43

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust
   (Case T-850/16)
   (2017/C 038/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: QE (Gouvy, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Cherif, lawyers)

      Defendant: Eurojust

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order, as a preliminary matter, that the minutes of the meeting of 17 March 2016 be produced to the Court;

               —

               annul the contested decisions of 22 April 2016 and of 18 May 2016;

               —

               order Eurojust to pay damages for the harm suffered by QE, estimated, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the proceedings, at EUR 20 000 (twenty thousand euros), plus interest from 8 July 2016 when the complaint was lodged, as calculated on the basis of the rate applicable during the relevant period set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two points;

               —

               order Eurojust to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea: absence of a legal basis, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of proportionality such as to vitiate the decision of 22 April 2016.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of Article 23(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a manifest error of assessment and infringements of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials such as to vitiate the decision of 18 May 2016.

               3.

               Third plea: misuse of powers and conflict of interest such as to vitiate the two contested decisions.


title: Case C-348/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Pietro Infusino v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2009 — Pietro Infusino v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid
   (Case C-348/09)
   2009/C 282/46
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pietro Infusino

      Defendant: Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid

      Question referred

   Does the term ‘imperative grounds of public security’ contained in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) cover only threats posed to the internal and external security of the State in terms of the continued existence of the State with its institutions and important public services, the survival of the population, foreign relations and the peaceful co-existence of nations?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-186/06: Action brought on  18 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/10

         Action brought on 18 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-186/06)
   (2006/C 154/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, in relation to the plan to irrigate the irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

               —

               an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Member States may not take advantage of their failure to designate Zones in accordance with the Directive in order to perform actions in those areas that may endanger its objectives and when, as in this case, the Member State has not designated protected areas where it ought to have done, the levels of protection required in an area of importance for birds are those laid down in Article 4(4) of the Directive.
   In consequence, the Commission takes the view that, by having provided for and implemented the procedures leading to the authorisation of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal irrigation plan, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1


title: Case C-448/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Mohamed Barkan, Souad Asbai, Assia Barkan, Zakaria Barkan, Nousaiba Barkan v Air Nostrum L.A.M. S.A.

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Mohamed Barkan, Souad Asbai, Assia Barkan, Zakaria Barkan, Nousaiba Barkan v Air Nostrum L.A.M. S.A.
   (Case C-448/16)
   (2016/C 428/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mohamed Barkan, Souad Asbai, Assia Barkan, Zakaria Barkan, Nousaiba Barkan

      Defendant: Air Nostrum L.A.M. S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 which is brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passenger concerned?

               2.

               Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
               Where passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the passenger’s final destination to be regarded as the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even when the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on a disruption to the first leg of the journey and the action is brought against the operating air carrier of the first flight, which is not party to the contract of carriage?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-276/04: Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/32

         Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-276/04)
   (2004/C 262/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A., established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 30 April 2004 in cases COMP/D232.450 and 32.448 imposing a fine on the applicant for infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, or at least substantially reduce the fine;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1992, the Commission imposed on, inter alia, the applicant a fine in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82) of the EC Treaty. The applicant brought an action against that decision and the Court of Justice, by judgment of 16 March 2000 (1), annulled the decision in so far as it imposed a fine on the applicant. Following that judgment, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which imposed a fine of EUR 3 400 000 on the applicant for the same infringements.
   In support of its application for annulment of the latter decision, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission adopted its second decision at a time when the period within which it could reasonably do so had elapsed and that it is therefore estopped from taking action. The applicant also claims that the Commission breached its rights of defence by re-opening the procedure solely in relation to the question of the fine. According to the applicant, where the Commission imposes a fine, it must re-assess the infringements as at the date of its new decision and cannot, as in the present case, have regard to assessments of the facts made 12 years ago. The applicant also claims that the fine is unjustified, as the infringements have not been established. Lastly, the applicant argues that the fine is discriminatory and disproportionate, that it was imposed in breach of the Commission's customary practice and that it amounts to an abuse of power. The applicant maintains that it received virtually the entire fine imposed for alleged abuses of a dominant position by a conference in which it held less than one third of the rights.

      (1)  Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P.


title: Case C-79/04: Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
3.4.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/19
(a)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period         2.    Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
       activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;                          guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
                                                                                and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
(b) the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period                  connection between the various claims within the mean-
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
       activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;                         on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
                                                                                such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
       or                                                                        avoidance of jurisdiction?
(c)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
       activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
       partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
       of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
       grant of the 999 year lease?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC OF 17 May 1977 on the                                          of Luxembourg
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment. OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.                                                  (Case C-79/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/36)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                          ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of                   Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion                   as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                           ‘Soptrans’ SA                                   the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (Case C-77/04)                                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
                                                                                implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
                          (2004/C 85/35)                                         to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
                                                                                any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                                Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,                    2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:
                                                                           The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                           31 December 2002.
1.     Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
       based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
       on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on             (1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.
       matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
       Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
       by the accession convention of 1978?


title: Case C-211/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 24 April 2017 — SC Topaz Development SRL v Constantin Juncu, Raisa Juncu, née Cernica

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 24 April 2017 — SC Topaz Development SRL v Constantin Juncu, Raisa Juncu, née Cernica
   (Case C-211/17)
   (2017/C 249/28)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Topaz Development SRL

      Respondents: Constantin Juncu, Raisa Juncu, née Cernica

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 3(2) and Article 4(1) of [Directive 93/13/EEC] (1) to be interpreted and applied to the effect that, in circumstances like those in the main proceedings — as submitted by the applicant at first instance, appellant on appeal (‘the appellant’) who referred to national case-law (judgment in cassation No 1646 of 18 April of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția comercială (Supreme Court of Cassation, Commercial Division) and civil appellate judgment No 466 of the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Bacău Court of Appeal), Case 3364/110/2014), that is, that proof of the negotiated nature of all the clauses of the preliminary contract of sale concluded by the parties is evidenced by the mere fact that the respondents acting as consumers had agreed to those clauses, by signing the preliminary contract drafted in advance by the property developer and subsequently authentified by a notary — in principle, the presumption that the clauses drafted in advance by the trader were not of a negotiated nature had been rebutted?

               2.

               Do clauses of the same nature in preliminary contracts of sale drafted in advance by property developers who are, as is the appellant, traders, and in particular points 3.2.2. and 7.1 of the preliminary contract of sale concluded by the parties to the dispute, containing a ‘fourth-degree’ forfeiture clause and a penalty clause exclusively in favour of the promisor-vendor, fall, in principle, within the scope of the clauses listed in paragraphs d), e), f) and i) of the Annex to Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               3.

               Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted and applied to the effect that, if the answer to the second question referred to the Court is in the affirmative, national courts may not amend (are prohibited from amending) the clauses held to be unfair, namely, by holding that the ‘fourth-degree’ forfeiture clause may operate under other conditions than those expressly provided for in the preliminary contract (for example, not in the event of any late or missed payment whatsoever regardless of the amount, but only for late or missed payments of a specified amount that the court, case by case, considers to be substantial), and to reduce (limit) the amount of the penalty clause to the amount paid as a deposit by the promisee-purchaser until such time as the forfeiture clause is triggered? In such cases, may the national courts limit themselves merely to ruling that those clauses do not apply to the consumer in question?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-315/05: Action brought on 11 August 2005 — ADOMEX International BV v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/24

         Action brought on 11 August 2005 — ADOMEX International BV v Commission
   (Case T-315/05)
   (2005/C 281/45)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): ADOMEX International BV (represented by G. Van der Wal, Advocate, and T. Boesmans, Advocate)

      Defendant(s): Commission
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 592 fin, Case N 372/2003 of 16 March 2005;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an importer and wholesaler of floral products and is principally engaged in importing into the Netherlands and further processing various kinds of cut foliage originating mainly in non-Member States.
   The applicant is challenging the Commission's decision not to object to an alteration in aid to flower producers approved in the framework of Files N 766/95 and NN 84/00. That system of aid concerns the rules governing a trade association for floral products established by the Horticultural commodity board, a subgrouping of the Netherlands trade organisation established under public law.
   In support of its application the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly did not inquire whether the aid scheme in question is compatible with the common market and is in conflict with Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant there is therefore an infringement of the duty under Article 253 EC to provide a statement of the reasons on which the decision is based.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision runs counter to Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant the aid scheme approved by the Commission does not constitute internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC but rather a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 23 and 25 EC. This conclusion follows from the fact that the charge does not affect the national and imported product with like severity, at the same transactional stage and on the basis of the same chargeable event, and that there are no national products of the same kind as or competing with the taxed imported product with the result that there cannot be said to be an internal system of taxation.
   In the applicant's view, the Commission decision is also incomprehensible or at least inadequately reasoned and thus in conflict with Article 253 EC. The applicant submits that the Commission refers in the decision to earlier decisions which are unsupported by a statement of reasons or in which the Commission gives its approval to an entirely different charge that that which is appraised in the decision. Moreover, the Commission appears to be manifestly in error as to the facts, inter alia by finding in the decision that the charge at issue is not imposed on imported products.
   Finally, the applicant declares that as a party concerned it was not given an opportunity to make known its views and was unable to exercise its procedural rights under Article 88(2) EC.