title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 15 January 2002 in Case C-439/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — Retention of certain national and regional rules regarding trade fairs, markets and exhibitions)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          —     Article 4, Article 5, sixth paragraph (a) and (c),
                                                                                Article 6, first paragraph, Article 8, first and second
                                                                                paragraphs, and Article 16, first paragraph, of
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                             Regional Law No 43 of Emilia-Romagna of 26 May
                                                                                1980;
                          15 January 2002                                       —     Article 4, paragraph 1(c), Article 4, paragraph 2, and
                                                                                Article 15, paragraph 3, of Regional Law No 45 of
                                                                                Lombardy of 29 April 1980;
in Case C-439/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                —     Article 3, Article 4 and Article 8, last paragraph, of
                                                                                Regional Law No 10 of Friuli Venezia Giulia of
                                                                                23 February 1981;
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 52
and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43
EC and 49 EC) — Retention of certain national and regional                      —     Article 2, last paragraph, and Article 6 of Regional
     rules regarding trade fairs, markets and exhibitions)                            Law No 75 of Abruzzo of 13 November 1980, and
                                                                                —     Article 3, Article 5, Article 6, third and fourth
                           (2002/C 84/21)                                             paragraphs, Article 12 and Article 19, first para-
                                                                                graph, of Provincial Law No 35 of the Autonomous
                                                                                Province of Trento of 2 September 1978,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                   in the European Court Reports)                          EC), Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC),
                                                                           Articles 61, 63 and 64 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                           Articles 51 EC, 52 EC and 53 EC) and Articles 65 and 66 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Articles 54 EC and 55 EC), and that
In Case C-439/99, Commission of the European Communities                   —    by retaining the following provisions:
(Agents: E. Traversa and M. Patakia, assisted by A. Cevese) v
Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo):                  —     Article 3 of Presidential Decree No 7 of 15 January
application for a declaration that                                                    1972;
—     by retaining the following provisions:                                    —     Article 2(c) and (d), Article 3, first paragraph, (b)
                                                                                and (c), and Article 5, first paragraph, (a), of Regional
      —    Article 2, first paragraph, and Article 7 of Royal                         Law No 12 of Liguria of 3 November 1972;
           Decree-Law No 454 of 29 January 1934;
                                                                                —     Article 8, paragraph 1(d) of Regional Law No 35 of
                                                                                Veneto of 2 August 1988;
      —    Article 2, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree
           No 7 of 15 January 1972;
                                                                                —     Article 6, third paragraph, points 3 and 4, Article 7,
                                                                                Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 11, first
      —    Article 2, paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, of Presidential                          paragraph, of Regional Law No 43 of Emilia-
           Decree No 390 of 18 April 1994;                                            Romagna of 26 May 1980;
      —    Article 4 of Regional Law No 40 of Liguria of 14 July                —     Article 5, paragraphs 2 and 5, Article 10, para-
           1978;                                                                      graph 4, Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3, and
                                                                                Article 15, paragraph 1, of Regional Law No 45 of
                                                                                Lombardy of 29 April 1980;
      —    Article 6, paragraph 1(e), (f), (g) and (h), Article 6,
           paragraph 4, and Article 7 of Regional Law No 35
           of Veneto of 2 August 1988;                                          —     Article 5, Article 13, Article 14 and Article 15, first
                                                                                paragraph, (a), of Regional Law No 10 of Friuli
                                                                                Venezia Giulia of 23 February 1981;
      —    Article 2, sixth paragraph, Article 4, first indent,
           Article 6, third and fourth paragraphs and Article 10,
           third paragraph, (a), of Regional Law No 16 of the                   —     Article 7 of Regional Law No 75 of Abruzzo of
           Marches of 12 March 1979;                                                  13 November 1980, and
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              6.4.2002
     —     Articles 6, 7 and 23 of Provincial Law No 35 of the                   —     Article 3 of Presidential Decree No 7 of 15 January
           Autonomous Province of Trento of 2 September                                1972;
           1978,
                                                                                —     Article 2(c) and (d), Article 3, first paragraph, (b) and (c),
                                                                                and Article 5, first paragraph, (a), of Regional Law
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                        No 12 of Liguria of 3 November 1972;
Articles 59 to 61 and 63 to 66 of the Treaty and under
Articles 52 and 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       —     Article 8, paragraph 1(d), of Regional Law No 35 of
Articles 43 EC and 44 EC), Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now                            Veneto of 2 August 1988;
Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and 57 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47 EC) and Article 58 of the                       —     Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 11, first
EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC),                                                         paragraph, of Regional Law No 43 of Emilia-Romagna
                                                                                of 26 May 1980, and
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,                         —     Articles 5, 13, 14 and 15, first paragraph, (a), of
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,                         Regional Law No 10 of Friuli Veneto Giulia of 23 Febru-
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 15 January 2002,                          ary 1981,
in which it:
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 59 to 61 and 63 to 66 of the Treaty and under
1.   Declares that by retaining the following provisions:                        Articles 52 and 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Articles 43 EC and 44 EC), Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                                Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and 57 of the EC Treaty (now,
     —     Article 2, first paragraph, and Article 7 of Royal Decree             after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47 EC) and Article 58
           No 454 of 29 January 1934;                                            of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC);
     —     Article 2, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No 7 of      3.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
           15 January 1972;
                                                                           4.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     —     Article 2, paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, of Presidential Decree
                                                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
           No 390 of 18 April 1994;
     —     Article 4 of Regional Law No 40 of Liguria of 14 July
           1978;
     —     Article 6, paragraph 1(e), (f) and (h), and Article 7 of                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           Regional Law No 35 of Veneto of 2 August 1988;
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
     —     Article 4, Article 5, sixth paragraph, (a) and (c), Article 6,
                                                                                24 January 2002
           first paragraph, Article 8, first and second paragraphs,
           and Article 16, first paragraph, of Regional Law No 43
           of Emilia-Romagna of 26 May 1980;                               in Case C-466/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
     —     Article 4, paragraph 1(c) and paragraph 2, and                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
           Article 15, paragraph 3, of Regional Law No 45 of               Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC,
           Lombardy of 29 April 1980;                                        91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)
     —     Articles 3, 4 and 8, last paragraph, of Regional Law                                        (2002/C 84/22)
           No 10 of Friuli Veneto Giulia of 23 February 1981, and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     —     Articles 3, 5 and 12 of Provincial Law No 35 of the
           Autonomous Province of Trento of 2 September 1978,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                           In Case C-466/99, Commission of the European Communities
     EC), Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC),
                                                                           (agents: L. Ström and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (agent:
     Articles 61, 63 and 64 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri): Application for a declaration
     amendment, Articles 51 EC, 52 EC and 53 EC) and Articles 65
                                                                           that, by not forwarding to the Commission information
     and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 54 EC and 55 EC);
                                                                           concerning plans for the management and disposal of waste,
                                                                           hazardous waste, packaging and packaging waste, the Italian
2.   Declares that by retaining the following provisions:                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of


title: Case T-50/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014  — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VOODOO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c)of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
   (Case T-50/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VOODOO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c)of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Andreas Müller (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: J. Pick, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 474/2012 4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Think Schuhwerk GmbH and Mr Andreas Müller

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-100/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Nordzucker v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/67

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Nordzucker v Commission
   (Case T-100/10)
   2010/C 113/100
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nordzucker AG (Brunswick, Germany) (represented by: M. Niestedt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009; (1)

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its action:

               —

               Lack of competence of the Commission to adopt a regulation relating to production levies for sugar marketing years 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 since the legal basis for the regulation was one that is no longer in force;

               —

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as a different procedure for the adoption of the contested regulation should have been selected, and the participation rights of the Council and of the European Parliament have thus been disregarded;

               —

               Failure to have regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06 Zuckerfabrik Jülich and Others [2008] ECR I-3231 in so far as, in the contested regulation, the Commission arbitrarily also changed the ‘total amount of refunds’ parameter in the calculation of production levies, even though this parameter was not the object of the Court’s examination;

               —

               Infringement of the prohibition of retroactivity by the subsequent amendment — only introduced by Regulation No 1193/2009 — of the total amount of refunds for sugar marketing years that had already been completed.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).


title: Case C-579/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2016 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-386/14: Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/28

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2016 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-386/14: Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission
   (Case C-579/16 P)
   (2017/C 014/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Blanck-Putz, A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission;

               —

               rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as unfounded in law; and

               —

               order the respondents and applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In the alternative, the appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission; and

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second plea at first instance; and

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law in finding that to establish the presence of State aid in the 2012 measures the Commission was required to apply the market economy creditor test in light of the cost which would have arisen for Denmark had it not adopted those measures. That finding of the General Court is a legal error because the cost in question is the direct consequence of the previous award of State aid by Denmark in favour of FIH and the consistent case-law of the Court makes clear that the Commission cannot take such a cost into account when it examines if a Member State has acted as a market economy operator would have done.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2002 in Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Application for reclassification in grade — Action — New facts — Reasonable period — Inadmissibility)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Germany), represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                         of 29 April 2002                                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and
                                                                          F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          Commission decision of 8 January 1998 dismissing the
in Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung v Commission of the Euro-                    applicant’s request for a reclassification of his grade —
                       pean Communities (1)                               the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
(Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —                  H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002 the
Action — New facts — Reasonable period — Inadmissi-                       operative part of which is as follows:
                                 bility)
                                                                          1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                          (2002/C 180/38)
                                                                          2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
In Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, resident in Luxembourg, rep-
resented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision of 17 December 1997 rejecting the applicant’s request                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for review of his classification in grade — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       of 12 April 2002
President, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002, the operative part
of which is as follows:                                                   in Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                               Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                                          (2002/C 180/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) — application for
                         of 29 April 2002                                 annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 September
                                                                          1999 (REM 2/98) finding that remission of duties payable on
in Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden v Commission of the                      the import of television sets from Turkey is not justified — the
                   European Communities (1)                               Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-
                                                                          ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
(Officials — Request for reclassification of grade — Action               Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2002, the operative part
— New information — Reasonable delay — Inadmissibility)                   of which is as follows:
                          (2002/C 180/39)                                 1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the present application;
                                                                          2.   The Commission is to pay all the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
In Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Trierweiler


title: Case C-365/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 October 2002 in the case of Marie Lindfors

text:
21.12.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 323/25
Action brought on 1 October 2002 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein hallin-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                    to-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 October 2002 in
                            Netherlands                                                      the case of Marie Lindfors
                                                                                (Case C-365/02)
                          (Case C-350/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/36)
                          (2002/C 323/35)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-
                                                                          oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 October 2002,
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   received at the Court Registry on 14 October 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Marie Lindfors on the
on 1 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          following question:
Communities, represented by M. Shotter and W. Wils, acting
as Agents.
                                                                          Is Article 1 of Directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions
                                                                          applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the
                                                                          personal property of individuals (1) to be interpreted as mean-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ing that the autovero (car tax) charged under the Autoverolaki
                                                                          on a vehicle imported into Finland from another Member State
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         in connection with a transfer of residence is a consumption
      and administrative provisions required to transpose                 tax within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the directive, or is
      Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC ( 1) of the European         such autovero a specific duty or tax connected with the use of
      Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                   such property within the country within the meaning of
      concerning the processing of personal data and the                  Article 1(2)?
      protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector
      into national law, or in any event by failing to forward            (1 ) OJ L 105 of 23 April 1983, p. 64.
      those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations;
2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-385/02)
Incomplete transposition of Article 6 of Directive 97/66/EC:                                        (2002/C 323/37)
the Netherlands legislation, in particular Article 11.5 of
the Telecommunicatiewet (Telecommunications Law), requires
only that the traffic data referred to in the secondary law be
erased or made anonymous. This provision will be in accord-               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
ance with the Directive only if the relevant secondary legis-             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 October
lation contains an exhaustive citation of all traffic data apart          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
from those referred to in Article 6(2) and (3) of the Directive.          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
The Commission has not as yet received any notification of                Agents.
provisions of secondary legislation with such an exhaustive
citation.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Article 9(a) of the Directive (tracing of malicious or nuisance                 obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of
calls) has not been transposed, as the Netherlands authorities                  14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures
have acknowledged.                                                              for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                Article 7(3) thereof, when the Magistrato per il Po di
                                                                                Parma, a department of the Ministry of Public Works
( 1) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1.                                                        (now the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport),
                                                                                awarded the contracts for work on the construction and
                                                                                completion of an expansion basin to hold spate waters of
                                                                                the River Parma in the area of Marano in the Parma


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Concept of agreement - Order - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 209/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                     of 14 May 1998
judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-317/94: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of                   (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
    Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994                   Concept of agreement Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Determination
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             of the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Mitigating
    Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the                                       circumstances)
    date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
    against it is stated to be prior to April 1989.                                           (98/C 209/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
    Article 1 of Decision 94/601/EC.
                                                                    In Case T-317/94: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                    established at Mayen, Germany, represented by Thomas
3. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth            Jestaett, Karsten Metzlaff and Hanns-Christian Salger,
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Decision 94/601/EC save              Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Frankfurt-am-
    and except the following passages:                              Main, the also by Verena von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin,
                                                                    Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith            Hardt v. Commission of the European Communities
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not         (Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in               Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any               Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the              proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
    same or a similar object or effect, including any               33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð
    exchange of commercial information:                             the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.
                                                                    BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
    (a) by which the participants are directly or                   Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order       given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
          producers.                                                1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of
                                                                         Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
                                                                         relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information                   Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its             date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any                   against it is stated to be prior to March 1988.
    information from which the behaviour of individual
    producers can be identified.'.
                                                                    2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
                                                                         paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                         601/EC save and except the following passages:
4. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
    by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 750 000.
                                                                         The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
                                                                         bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
5. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in
    claims.                                                              relation to their cartonboard activities from any
                                                                         agreement or concerted practice which may have the
                                                                         same or a similar object or effect, including any
6. Orders the Commission to bear its costs and to pay                    exchange of commercial information:
    one-half of the applicant's costs.
                                                                         (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                               indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
7. Orders the applicant to bear one-half of its own costs.                     backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
                                                                               costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                               producers.
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                         Any scheme for the exchange of general information
                                                                         to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 209/33
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    information from which the behaviour of individual                                   of 14 May 1998
    producers can be identified.'.
                                                                  in Case T-327/94: SCA Holding Ltd v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
    by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 2 500 000.          (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                  Liability for the infringement Ð Fine Ð Statement of
                                                                              reasons Ð Mitigating circumstances)
4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                     (98/C 209/70)
    claims.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                  In Case T-327/94: SCA Holding Ltd, established at
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                  Aylesford, United Kingdom, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                  Scasselati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, and Laurent
                                                                  Garzaniti, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and
                                                                  Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of the European
                                                                  Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Richard Lyal) Ð
                                                                  application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                      of 14 May 1998                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
                                                                  OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third
in Case T-319/94: Fiskeby Board AB v. Commission of               Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
                the European Communities (1)                      B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt,
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Fines             P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
Ð Determination of the amount Ð Mitigating                        GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
           circumstances Ð Statement of reasons)                  judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
                        (98/C 209/69)
                                                                  1. Dismisses the application.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-319/94: Fiskeby Board AB, established at                (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
Norrköping, Sweden, represented by Carl Wetter, of the
Stockholm Bar, and Christopher Vajda, Barrister, of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Richard Lyal) Ð
application for a reduction in the fine imposed on the              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
applicant by Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the                                    of 14 May 1998
EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of                 in Case T-334/94: Sarrió SA v. Commission of the
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended                               European Communities (1)
Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the
Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.             (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the       Concept of single infringement Ð Information exchange
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which           Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Determination of the amount Ð
it:                                                               Method of calculation Ð Statement of reasons Ð
                                                                                Mitigating circumstances)
1. Dismisses the application.                                                             (98/C 209/71)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.                                         In Case T-334/94: Sarrió SA, established at Pamplona,
                                                                  Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the
                                                                  Barcelona Bar, Alberto Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar,
                                                                  Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples


title: Case F-120/14: Action brought on 25 October 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/57

         Action brought on 25 October 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-120/14)
   (2015/C 007/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the applicant’s request that his place of origin be changed to Larnaca (Cyprus) and the centre of his interests to Singapore, instead of Montreal (Canada), following his transfer to the European Parliament.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Parliament of 17 December 2013 refusing to substitute Singapore for Montreal as the centre of his interests and consequently to fix his place of origin as Larnaca, and, insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 16 July 2014 rejecting the complaint that he had lodged against the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-17/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/40

         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-17/15)
   (2015/C 127/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Fouquet, avocat)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 31.10.2014 (HR.D.2/AS/ac/Ares82014) in response to the complaint filed by ZZ (No. R/781/14);

               —

               order the defendant to take a new decision on the case, respecting the Court’s findings, and notably deleting the contested sentence from the claimant’s report;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.


title: Case T-25/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Force of res judicata — Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Series of marks)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD)
   (Case T-25/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Force of res judicata - Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Series of marks))
   (2017/C 195/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler and C. Brockmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: J. Sachs and C. Sachs, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1907/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Haw Par and Cosmowell.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-431/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Nencini v Parliament

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/40

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Nencini v Parliament
   (Case T-431/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, on the grounds set out in the application, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini, Communication No 312331 of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances of 4 August 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to the Secretary-General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum at issue.

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament who served during the period 1994 — 1999, relies on the following grounds:

               —

               Infringement of the language regime of the European Community and consequent infringement of the rights of due process and the principle of effective protection, in so far as the two contested measures should have been written in Italian, the language of the Member State of which the applicant is a national.

               —

               The claim for the sum purportedly owing is inadmissible, since the right to claim that sum is time-barred.

               —

               Infringement of the principle that both parties must be heard and the principle of effective protection. It is submitted in this connection that, in the case of the applicant, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament adopted the final decision on the basis of facts and legal grounds which are, in part, different from those previously relied on and made known to the applicant.

               —

               Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to travel allowances, by failing to take account of the fact that, during the period in which the applicant served as an MEP, his place of residence was Rome. In that city, which is capital of Italy and the centre of national political life, Mr Nencini was continually engaged in political activities as the national leader of his political party.

               —

               Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to the allowance for secretarial assistance. The applicant states he transferred to the persons employed as his personal secretaries all the allowances received for that purpose and did not retain any sum for himself.

               —

               Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the general principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-216/07: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-216/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/54)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-550/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by J against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by J against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament

   (Case C-550/12 P)
   2013/C 32/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 and declare that ‘The judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament is set aside in its entirety. The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs’.

         If the appeal is deemed to be founded, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               grant in full the application made at first instance for the annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 rejecting petition No 1673/2009 submitted by the appellant on 19 November 2009;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs incurred at first instance;
               in the alterative,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The General Court wrongly found there to have been no infringement of the duty to state reasons on the part of the Committee on Petitions in its declaration of inadmissibility of the appellant’s petition. The appellant submits that, in its petition, it complained expressly of the infringement of the right to property and an infringement of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) by the Austrian authorities. Those infringements were not addressed in the declaration of inadmissibility of the petition — even though they were referred to expressly — with the result that it was not possible for the appellant to understand why the European Parliament deemed its petition to be inadmissible.
   Moreover, the General Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Austrian authorities was in no way linked to the implementation of European Union law. The Austrian authorities confiscated documents belonging to the appellant which are protected by copyright, without being provided with any compensation. As a result, the appellant’s right to (intellectual) property within the scope of Directive 2004/48/EC was infringed.

      (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45). Corrigenda thereto: OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16 and OJ 2007 L 204, p. 27.


Avis juridique important

|

E1994J0001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise)

Official Journal C 398 , 31/12/1994 P. 0018 - 0018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise) (94/C 398/05)(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Finnish)In Case E-1/94: reference to the Court for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Tullilautakunta (Tullnämnden, the Appeals Committee at the Finnish Board of Customs) in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Customs House) - on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Leif Sevón, President, Björn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl and Sven Norberg (Rapporteur), Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:1. Article 11 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which confers on a statutory State monopoly the exclusive right to import alcoholic beverages falling within the product coverage of the EEA Agreement and originating in the Contracting Parties, or the application to intra-EEA trade of national provisions which require the authorization of the statutory State monopoly for the importation and putting into free circulation of such products, even if such an authorization is granted automatically. Neither can such measures be justified pursuant to Article 13 of the EEA Agreement merely because they form part of an alcohol policy aimed at minimizing the harmful effects to health of consumption of alcoholic beverages, since this objective can be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of the free movement of goods.2. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 1 January 1994, every State monopoly of a commercial character not covered by Protocol 8 to the EEA Agreement must be adjusted so as to eliminate the exclusive right to import the goods the subject of the monopoly into a Contracting Party from other Contracting Parties.3. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as fulfilling the implicit criteria in Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement of being unconditional and sufficiently precise.(1) OJ No C 199, 21. 7. 1994, p. 9.


title: Case F-45/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/46

         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-45/14)
   2014/C 212/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 September 2013 calculating the bonus to his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases T-458/09 and T-171/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2012 — Slovak Telekom v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decisions requesting information — Necessity for the information sought — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2012 — Slovak Telekom v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-458/09 and T-171/10) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decisions requesting information - Necessity for the information sought - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Proportionality)
   2012/C 133/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented: initially by M. Maier, L. Kjølbye and D. Geradin, and subsequently by L. Kjølbye, D. Geradin and G. Berrisch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: in Case T-458/09, by F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz and in Case T-171/10, by F. Castillo de la Torre, K. Mojzesowicz and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2009) 6840 of 3 September 2009 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 18(3) and 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.523 — Slovak Telekom) and, second, of Commission Decision C(2010) 902 of 8 February 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 18(3) and 24(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.523 — Slovak Telekom)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Slovak Telekom a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-579/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Akhras v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation and provisional measures — Lack of urgency — Lack of serious and irreparable harm)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Akhras v Council
   (Case T-579/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation and provisional measures - Lack of urgency - Lack of serious and irreparable harm)
   2012/C 39/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: S. Ashley and S. Millar, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In essence, application for provisional measures and suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), in so far as those texts refer to the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Mauro Alzetta and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-298/97)

text:
C 55/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
     also, as the case may be, the subsequent period during         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
     which his widow receives a widow's pension,                    1997 by Alzetta Mauro, Antonini Maria Luisa, Avon
                                                                    Maria Angela, Avon Pietro, Biasotto Marzio, Bianchin
                                                                    Roberto, Bagatin Venanzio, Bit Leo, Bortolus Giuseppe,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                    Bortolussi Urbano, Brovedani Francesco, Bot Roberto,
                                                                    Carcione Leone, Casagrande Elio, Cicagna Giuseppe,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Cogato Luigi, Corradini Franco, Cozzi Aldo, Dal Pos
                                                                    Marinella, De Re Guido, De Zotti Giovanni, Favalessa
                                                                    Enzo, Furlan Giuseppe, Marchese Michelino, Marson
From March 1991 the applicant, who has been in
                                                                    Graziella, Miorini Pierluigi, Picolo Claudio, Pinna Mario,
retirement since 1 November 1996, was a grade A 4
                                                                    Pivetta Giorgio, Pivetta Luciano Stelvio, Pizzolitto Enrico,
official employed as the Head of the large and important
                                                                    Sferruggia Mariano, represented by Antonia Pili, of the
Management Support Unit of the Joint Research Centre at
                                                                    Pordnone Bar, Anselmo Barone and Giancarlo Pezzano, of
Ispra. He claims that, before being transferred to that
                                                                    the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
post, he was told by his then superior that this must and
                                                                    at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort
would lead to his promotion to grade A 3. However, he
                                                                    Rheinsheim.
was subsequently denied that promotion. The applicant is
now contesting the failure to grant him the promotion
promised to him in 1991, the continuing failure to                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
promote him during the period from 1991 to 1996 and
the fact that he was not promoted in 1996 with
retroactive effect from 1 November 1995. To that end, the           Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
applicant invokes the prohibition of discrimination and/or               30 July 1997,
the principle of equal treatment, together with the duty
incumbent on the defendant to have regard for the
interests and welfare of officials, since the applicant, like       Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
the other heads of units within the administration of the                inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Joint Research Centre, was entitled to be employed in an                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
A 3 post. The applicant bases his claim for compensation                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
on the fact that the manner in which the specific                        was paid,
procedure for the promotion of officials to grade A 3 was
held in 1996 was legally open to challenge. Thus, not only          Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
were the reports concerning the applicant not produced by                Communities to pay the costs.
the due date; in addition, the contemporary reports were
not submitted during the course of the selection
procedure. Had the procedure been correctly followed, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant would have been promoted, with retroactive
effect from 1 November 1995, to an A 3 post becoming
vacant following the retirement of another official. Before         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
himself going into retirement, the applicant would have             relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
worked for a whole year in that position. He therefore              Giulia v. Commission (1).
claims that he is entitled to be placed in the position in
which he would have found himself if the defendant had              (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
fulfilled its obligations in the correct manner. This means
that he is entitled to receive compensation for the material
damage suffered by him, in the form of payment of the
difference between the remuneration of an A 4 official and
an A 3 official, together with a corresponding adjustment
in respect of pension payments.
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1997 by The Bavarian
                                                                    Lager Company Limited against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-309/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/55)
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Mauro Alzetta
and Others against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                (Language of the case: English)
                       (Case T-298/97)
                         (98/C 55/54)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1997 by the Bavarian Lager Company Limited,
                                                                    represented by Stephen Hornsby, with an address for
An action against the Commission of the European                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Marc,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.


title: Case T-367/13: Action brought on 15 July 2013 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/47

         Action brought on 15 July 2013 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case T-367/13)
   2013/C 260/84
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 (notified under document C(2013) 2436) on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 8 292 783,94 and EUR 71 610 559,39 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the applicant raises three pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law concerns a breach of the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 by reason of the application of a financial correction based on erroneous determinations of fact and a misinterpretation of law, notwithstanding the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Polish authorities in compliance with the provisions of European Union law
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant expresses the view that the correction applied was, in the light of the position taken by the Commission, attributable to five alleged failings in the completion of the measure relating to ‘Support for semi-subsistence farms’. The first failing concerned a breach of the alleged requirement that the beneficiary should provide at least 50 % of the funds for supporting restructuring activities. The second failing related to non-performance of cross-control of farm animals in the context of the administrative monitoring of the initial request in regard to the correctness of the economic size unit (ESU) indicated by the farmer. The third failing related to a breach of an alleged requirement that an on-site inspection be effected in the first year in which the programme is carried out. The fourth failing, in the view of the Commission, lay in the absence of an appropriate connection between intermediate objectives and agricultural requirements. By contrast, the fifth failing concerned a breach of the alleged requirement that a quantitative definition of intermediate objectives be provided. The applicant takes issue with the Commission’s interpretation of the law and its determination of the facts in relation to each of the alleged failings mentioned above.

               2.

               The second plea in law concerns a breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of the application of a financial correction method which was flagrantly at variance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, together with Guidelines No VI/5330/97
               The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission adopted a correction method that is contrary to European Union law and also at variance with Guidelines No VI/5330/97. Furthermore, the applicant believes that the bilateral procedure did not make it possible for the Polish authorities to carry out any kind of verification of the appraisal of the established incompatibilities, as it was only after the bilateral procedure had been completed that the Commission took steps to conclude the appraisal. On that basis, the applicant submits that the financial correction was applied by the Commission in a manner which seriously breached the procedure for clearing the accounts.

               3.

               The third plea in law concerns a breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU on the ground that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned
               The applicant criticises the Commission on the ground that, under the contested decision, the Polish authorities were not closely involved in the decision-making process as the Commission presented its position of principle only after bilateral consultation. The Commission did not adduce any evidence and failed to provide grounds for its findings of law and fact, which it adopted as the basis for the financial correction applied.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 123, 4.5.2013, p. 11.


title: Case C-543/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 91/477/EEC — Issuing of the European firearms pass — National legislation according to which that pass is issued only to holders of a firearms licence issued for hunting or target shooting use)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline
      (Case C-543/12) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 91/477/EEC - Issuing of the European firearms pass - National legislation according to which that pass is issued only to holders of a firearms licence issued for hunting or target shooting use))
      (2014/C 395/08)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Michal Zeman

         Defendant: Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target shooting purposes.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case F-121/14: Action brought on 27 October 2014  — ZZ v Council

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/57

         Action brought on 27 October 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-121/14)
   (2015/C 007/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Council decision to apply a solidarity levy, as from 1 January 2014, to the applicant’s remuneration and not to adjust his remuneration for the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the express decision applying a solidarity levy from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 even though there is a remuneration adjustment freeze covering the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 and,

               —

               annul the implied decision not to apply an annual adjustment of the applicant’s remuneration for the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015, those two decisions having been disclosed for the first time in the applicant’s payslip for January 2014 and notified on 14 January 2014;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 July 2014 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma - Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by orders of that court of 22 November 1995 in criminal proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco Palermo (Case C-6/96 and 7/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/9
      and which has not been published or otherwise made                — must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Directive 69/355/EEC
      available to the parties ?                                            of 17 July 1969 (*) be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                            Directive applies to the merger/take-over transactions
4 . Having regard to all other circumstances was the fixing                 defined by Articles 371 to 372-2 of Law No 66.537 of
      of the said quotas by the Council compatible with:                    24 July 1966 on commercial companies ?
        ( i ) the common fisheries policy, and in particular
              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3760/92 of
                                                                        — Is the charging by the French State of a proportional tax
                                                                            for the drawing-up of registration certificates following
              20 December 1992 establishing a Community
                                                                            a merger/take-over transaction compatible with the
              system for fisheries and aquaculture (2)?                     prohibition laid down by Article 10 of the Directive and,
      ( ii ) The principle of proportionality ?                             if it is not, is it covered by the provisions of
                                                                            Article 12 ?
5 . If the fixing of the said quotas by Regulation ( EC )
      No 3362/94 is invalid are the applicants entitled to claim        (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
      damages against the respondent and if so what are the
      conditions for liability ?
(') OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 389 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Conseil
                                                                        d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium, Administrative Division,
                                                                        in the proceedings pending before that court in the case of
                                                                        Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des Oiseaux and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                       Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES against the
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
orders of that court of 22 November 1995 in criminal                                         Ornithologique Beige
proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco
                                 Palermo                                                          ( Case C-10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/20 )
                       ( Case C-6/96 and 7/96 )
                             ( 96/C 64/18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                           ( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium,
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli                    Administrative Division, of 10 November 1995 , which was
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                received at the Court Registry on 17 January 1996 , for a
22 November 1995 , which were received at the Court                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Registry on 11 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in               court in the case of Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection
criminal proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco              des Oiseaux and Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES
Palermo . The questions referred by the Pretura                         against the Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the             Ornithologique Beige, on the following questions :
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).                                            1 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC ( 1 ) of
                                                                            2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds allow a
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p. 6 .                                    Member State to take account, on a decreasing basis and
                                                                            over a specified period, of the fact that the prohibition of
                                                                            capturing birds for recreational purposes would compel
                                                                            numerous fanciers to alter their installations and to
                                                                            abandon certain habitats where that State recognizes
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                     that breeding is possible but is not yet feasible on a large
                                                                            scale for that reason ?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Tours, by judgment of
that court of 4 January 1996 in the case of Locamion SA v.
            Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et Loire             2 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC allow
                              Case C-8/96 )                                 Member States, and if so to what extent, to authorize the
                                                                            capture of birds living naturally in the wild state within
                              ( 96/C 64/19 )                                European territory with a view to obviating, in bird
                                                                             breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      consanguinity which would result from too many
European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the                   endogenous crossings ?
Tribunal de Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Tours, of
4 January 1996, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        (') OJ No L 103 , p . 1 .
 15 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Locamion SA v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et
Loire on the following questions :


title: Case C-143/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language — Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/4

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA
   (Case C-143/13) (1)

   ((Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language - Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate))
   (2015/C 138/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

      Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, ‘main subject-matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other’ do not, in principle, cover the types of terms in the credit agreements concluded between a professional and consumers such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, on one hand, allow, under certain conditions, the lender unilaterally to alter the interest rate and, on the other hand, provide for a ‘risk charge’ applied by the lender. However, it is for the referring court to verify that classification of those contractual terms having regard to the nature, general scheme and stipulations of the agreements concerned and the legal and factual context of which they form part.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2002 in Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Application for annulment of a decision transferring an official and appointing a different official to the vacant post — Disguised disciplinary measure — Rights of defence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 109/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
7.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive              2.    Orders Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading
      85/303, gives rise to rights on which individuals may rely                 Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar
      before national courts.                                                    Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena
                                                                                2004 SA, Freewind Shipping Co. and Elliniki Etaireia
                                                                                Diipeirotikon Grammon AE to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 2000 C 122.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2002.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 15 January 2002
                                                                                of 31 January 2002
in Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                in Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Harm caused by armed intervention in the Federal Republic                  (Appeal — Application for annulment of a decision transfer-
       of Yugoslavia — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                        ring an official and appointing a different official to the
                                                                           vacant post — Disguised disciplinary measure — Rights of
                                                                                defence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
                          (2002/C 109/25)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/26)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, established in
Monrovia (Liberia), Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., established
in Monrovia, Caroline Shipping Inc., established in Monrovia,              In Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels
Simpson Navigation Ltd, established in Monrovia, Solar Navi-               (Belgium), represented by S. Diana, avocat, — appeal against
gation Corporation, established in Monrovia, Ocean Quest Sea               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Carriers Ltd, established in Monrovia, Athena 2004 SA,                     Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case
established in Monrovia, Freewind Shipping Co., established in             T-100/00 Campoli v Commission [2001] ECR FP I-A-71 and
Monrovia, and Elliniki Etaireia Diipeirotikon Grammon AE,                  II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Pireus (Greece), represented by N. Skandamis                party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
and A. Potamianos, dikigoroi — appeal against the order of                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
(Second Chamber) of 12 December 2000 in Case T-201/99                      Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council and Commission                  Pergola and C.W.A: Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
[2000] ECR II-4005, seeking to have that order set aside, the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European             31 January 2002, in which it:
Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Kyriakopolou) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Chris-                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
toforou and A. van Solinge) — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,               2.    Orders Mr. Campoli to pay the costs.
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 January
2002, in which it:                                                         (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case C-543/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie
   (Case C-543/15)
   (2016/C 016/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

      Question referred

   Must Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a capacity mechanism in the electricity sector such as that at issue in the main proceedings which is described in particular in paragraphs 1, 15 and 17 to 19 of the present decision?
   In particular:

               a)

               Even though the mechanism remunerates capacities only on the basis of their availability, not of their actual production, and having regard to the taking into account of the effects of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, which relaxes the causal link between the exclusion of foreign capacities from the mechanism, as laid down by the decree, and the restrictive effect on cross-border electricity trading which could arise therefrom in terms of investors’ resource allocation choices and suppliers’ procurement choices, must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as precluding such an exclusion measure?

               b)

               Having regard to developments in the European legal framework governing the internal market in electricity, is the objective of security of electricity supply for the inhabitants of a Member State capable of being covered by the concept of public security provided for in Article 36 TFEU?

               c)

               Having regard, in particular, to the discretion granted to Member States with respect to defining suitable policies to ensure their security of electricity supply, what criteria may be used to ascertain whether a decentralised market-based capacity mechanism, involving, in the present state of the European electricity market, a measure excluding foreign capacities which is offset by the taking into account of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, is capable of satisfying the condition of proportionality required for Article 36 TFEU to apply?