title: Case T-176/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/49

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission
   (Case T-176/14)
   2014/C 142/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case C-431/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Orange France S.A., Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR (Appeals — State aid — Article 88(2) EC — Conditions for initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Criteria for establishing the existence of State aid — State resources — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Orange France S.A., Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR
   (Case C-431/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Article 88(2) EC - Conditions for initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Criteria for establishing the existence of State aid - State resources - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2009/C 141/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile, S. Perrotet, A. Bénabent, J. Vogel and L. Vogel, avocats,)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, O. Christmann and A.L. Vendrolini, Agents), Orange France SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats), Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR (represented by: A. Vincent, avocat and by C. Vajda QC)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 July 2004 (State Aid NN 42/2004 — France) concerning alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System) licences — State aid — Conditions for initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Criteria for State aid — Concepts of State resources, competitive advantage and non-discrimination.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-330/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/31

         Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)
   (Case T-330/16)
   (2016/C 296/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ — Application for registration No 12 440 574

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 1979/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject opposition B 2 336 348 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 440 574;

               —

               order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 440 574 ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ (with graphic);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-52/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Harry's Morato v OHIM — Ferrero Deutschland (MORATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Cancellation of the earlier trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Harry's Morato v OHIM — Ferrero Deutschland (MORATO)
   (Case T-52/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Cancellation of the earlier trade mark - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 326/126)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Harry's Morato SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy) (represented by: N. Ferretti, G. Casucci and F. Trevisan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and O. Montaldo, Agents)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt/Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 600/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings Harry's Morato SpA and Ferrero Deutschland GmbH.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this case.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-375/99: Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 366/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.12.1999
Such a large adjustment, amounting to 10 % of the entire                 — the principle of sound administration;
expenditure declared by Spain, contained in the contested
decision is not in any way justified pursuant to the general             — in the alternative, breach of the principle of pro-
Community law principle of proportionality. The system for                    portionality.
monitoring aid for the consumption of olive oil is an altogether
reliable system and the basic checks demanded by Community
legislation have been properly carried out. In particular, as            (1) OJ L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
recognised by the Conciliation Body itself, the importance of
the risk of any losses for the EAGGF may be non-existent. In
any event, in the contested decision the Commission goes
counter to its own measures in taking into consideration the
application of sanctions and the proper supervision of the
procedures (although Spain considers itself to have acted
correctly without infringing Community law) in its communi-
cation on guidelines for the calculation of the budgetary
implications in preparing the Decision on the clearance of the           Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Kingdom of
accounts of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, on the basis of                Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
auxiliary and not basic cheeks. That should, of itself, lead in                                           ties
any event to a much smaller adjustment than that imposed in
the decision.
                                                                                (Case C-375/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/29)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 7 October
2. P r e m i u m s f o r s h e e p o r g o a t s                         1999 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Mónica
                                                                         López-Monı́s Gallego, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard
                                                                         E. Servais.
A total of PTE 159 802 819 corresponding to an adjustment
of 5 % of the payments made in the provinces of Palencia,                The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Salamanca, Orense and Castellón and of 2 % of the payments
made in the province of Lugo in the financial years 1994 and             — Annul the Commission’s decision of 28 July 1999, exclud-
1995 for the marketing year 1993. The higher amounts                          ing from Community financing certain expenditure by the
considered by the Commission also include payments made in                    Member States in respect of the financial adjustments
1993, a financial year which had already been cleared by                      imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and contested in the
Decision 97/33/EC of 23 April 1997 and Decision 97/608/EC                     application;
of 30 July 1997 in which distinct penalties were imposed for
various reasons, no sum being separated for subsequent                   — order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
clearance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In general, breach of the following principles of Community
                                                                         The Kingdom of Spain expresses its disagreement with the
law:
                                                                         flat-rate adjustment amounting to 5 % of the expenditure
                                                                         declared and with the way in which the Commission’s staff
                                                                         acted, for the following reasons:
— principle of the right to a hearing: this principle has
     been breached in all the adjustments contested in the               (A) Since the financial adjustment was not calculated in the
     application. It was formally observed, but the Com-                      formal notification on the ground that it was subject to
     mission’s replies are in practice confined to repetition of              the sending of further information, it was not possible to
     the same points, without contradiction or rebuttal of the                know whether the conditions laid down in Commission
     arguments put forward;                                                   Decision 94/442/EC (1) in order to seek the intervention of
                                                                              the Conciliation Body had been satisfied.
                                                                         (B) The formal notification document states that, because of
— lack of evidence of the wrongful conduct attributed to the                  the laxity of the implementing legislation in the Member
     Member State: the Commission based the adjustments                       State, it was proposed in the clearance of the accounts for
     either on circumstantial factors or suspicions, or on data               the financial years 1996 and 1997 to impose a financial
     rebutted or corrected by the Spanish authorities;                        adjustment of 5 % of the expenditure declared by Spain
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 366/19
     under tariff headings 2 1 1 1, 2 1 1 2 and 2 1 1 3. Since          Pleas in law and main arguments
     the expenditure declared by Spain under tariff heading
     2 1 1 3 was negative, it was considered that the Com-
     mission would not take account of that line for the                The action is directed against the fact that the contested
     purposes of the calculation of the total amount of the             decision charged to the Federal Republic of Germany, with
     financial adjustment. However, the adjustment in respect           respect to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, instead of a financial
     of heading 2 1 1 3 made by the Commission corresponds              correction of 2 % a correction of 5 %, and hence an amount in
     solely to the item relating to purchases and not to the total      excess of DEM 12 157 646,13, namely DEM 18 236 469,20,
     amount of expenditure declared by Spain under the tariff           for 1995 for the arable crops sector.
     heading during the financial year, which significantly
     increases the proposed adjustment, thus departing from
     the letter of the official communication.                          The Commission was not able, in the annex to the Summary
                                                                        Report, to produce any comprehensible and substantiated
                                                                        reasons to show that the entire ‘on-the-spot control’ measure
(C) The differences found during the prior inspection referred
                                                                        in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was defective and that all the
     to in the summary report are similar to those detected in
                                                                        defects taken together led to a substantial risk of loss for the
     other Member States, where the percentage applied in the
                                                                        EAGGF, justifying a correction of 5 %. In particular, it was
     financial adjustment has been only 2 % as opposed to the
                                                                        unable, on the basis of its inspection visit to Mecklenburg-
     5 % applied to Spain.
                                                                        Vorpommern in 1998, to adduce any new facts capable of
                                                                        justifying that assessment.
(1) OJ L 182 of 16 July 1994, p. 45.
                                                                        The increase of the financial correction from 2 % to 5 % by
                                                                        the Commission is unlawful because the Commission complied
                                                                        neither with the principle that the administrative authorities
                                                                        are bound by the reservation they formulated nor with the
                                                                        necessary procedural rules with respect to the procedure
                                                                        for closure of the accounts, in particular arbitration. The
                                                                        Commission further incorrectly exercised its discretion with
                                                                        respect to assessment of the defects actually found.
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Repub-                  Altogether, the Commission has not shown conclusively why
lic of Germany against the Commission of the European                   in its definitive fixing of the financial correction it departed
                            Communities                                 both from its originally intended rate of correction and from
                                                                        the rate proposed by the arbitration body of not more than
                                                                        2 %.
                          (Case C-377/99)
                          (1999/C 366/30)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
and Claus-Dieter Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the Feder-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
al Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Strasse,          gericht by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in the
D-53117 Bonn.                                                           case of Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer
                                                                                Ersatzkasse VVAG v Hans Menauer
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-379/99)
— Annul Commission Decision COM(1999) 2476 fin. of
     28 July 1999 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the
     clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States                                   (1999/C 366/31)
     in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
     Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as under Article 2 the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     sum of DEM 18 236 469,20 is not accepted by the EAGGF
                                                                        (Federal Labour Court) of 23 March 1999, received at the
     but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;
                                                                        Court Registry on 7 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 Ersatzkasse VVAG v Hans Menauer on the following question:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 4 July 1996 in Case C-254/95 P: European Parliament v. Angelo Innamorati (Appeal - Officials - Competitions - Rejection of candidature - Statement of reasons for the decision of a selection board in an open competition)

text:
No C 336/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 . 96
P. Leger, Registrar : D. Loutermann-Hubeau , Principal                      1 . Dismisses the application;
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in
which it :
                                                                           2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                   (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
      Greek nationality to access to posts involving direct or             ( 2 ) OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p . 13 .
      indirect participation in the exercise of powers
      conferred by public law and duties designed to
      safeguard the general interests of the State or of other
      public authorities in the public sectors of water, gas and
      electricity distribution, the operational public health
      services, in the sectors of public education, transport
      by sea and air, railways, city and intercity public                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      transport, research for civil purposes, posts and
      telecommunications           and    radio      and   television                              (Third Chamber )
      broadcasting, and at the Athens Opera and in municipal                                         of 4 July 1996
      and local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty             in Case C-254/95 P: European Parliament v. Angelo
                                                                                Innamorati ( 1 )
      and Article I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
      of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                        (Appeal — Officials — Competitions — Rejection of
      workers within the Community;                                        candidature — Statement of reasons for the decision of a
                                                                                selection board in an open competition)
2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 336/ 12 )
(') O J No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                          (Language of the case: French)
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Ediditon 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-254/94 P : European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred
                                                                           Peter and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana ) — appeal against the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                Communities of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati
                             of 4 July 1996                                v. Parliament ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-393 , seeking to have that
                                                                           judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
in Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the                   Angelo Innamorati ( represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                     European Communities ( l )                            Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
      (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — Expenditure for                       Tornel ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P.
                                  .1990)                                   Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
                             ( 96/C 336/ 11 )                              Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                           Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 4 July 1996 , in which it :
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            1 . Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati v.
            published in the European Court Reports)                             Parliament;
In Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic ( Agents : Vasileios                   2 . Dismisses Mr Innamorati 's application for annulment
Kontolaimos, Ioannis Chalkias, Christina Sitara and                              of the decision by which the Selection Board in Open
Vasileia Pelekou ) v. Commission of the European                                  Competition PE/59/A awarded him an eliminatory
Communities ( Agent: Xenophon Yataganas ) — application                          mark in the third written test in that competition and
for annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
                                                                                refused to admit him to the other tests;
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural                           3 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs incurred in
Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee                                 these proceedings and in those before the Court of First
Section ( 2 ), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic the                 Instance .
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
4 July 1996 , in which it:


title: Case C-281/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms — Directive 2009/41/EC — Incorrect and incomplete transposition)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-281/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms - Directive 2009/41/EC - Incorrect and incomplete transposition)
   2014/C 52/07
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro Nolin and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect and incomplete transposition of Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 2009 L 125, p. 75).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to transpose Articles 3(3), 7, 8(2) and (3), 9(2)(a), 18(1), second subparagraph, and 18(3) and (4), of Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-144/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 83/182/EEC — Tax exemptions — Temporary import of vehicles — Normal residence)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-144/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/182/EEC - Tax exemptions - Temporary import of vehicles - Normal residence)
   2009/C 180/27
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) — Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-356/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2012 — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2012 — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-356/12)
   2013/C 9/41
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Glatzel

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Question referred

   Is point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 (2) compatible with Article 20, Article 21(1) and Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as that provision requires — without permitting any derogation — that applicants for Category C1 and Category C1E driving licences have a minimum visual acuity of 0.1 in their worse eye even if those persons use both eyes together and have a normal field of vision when using both eyes?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 223, p. 31.


title: Case C-134/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 10 March 2003 in the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO Immobilier S.a.r.l.

text:
21.6.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                          of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 10 March 2003
                                                                          in the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société
                                                                                GIOTTO Immobilier S.a.r.l.
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in so far as it held that, as a matter of principle, a decision
to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case                                       (Case C-134/03)
60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissibility
where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
of application is determined on a case by case basis.                                             (2003/C 146/38)
The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
                                                                          (Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 10 March 2003, received at the
rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
                                                                          Court Registry on 25 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
                                                                          the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
                                                                          Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:
procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.
                                                                          1.   Is the entrusting to a public undertaking (municipalities)
                                                                               of the management of a tax and duties such as those
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the               described above, on a market which constitutes a substan-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                  tial part of the common market and on which the public
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                  undertaking holds a dominant position inconsistent with:
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.
                                                                               a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                          Article 82 EC;
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                     b)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                   Article 49 EC.
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.
                                                                          2.   Is the payment to that public undertaking of the income
                                                                               from the tax and charges in question inconsistent with:
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District                    a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was                       Article 82 EC;
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.
                                                                               b)    the application of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, as
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.                                                      unlawful State aid (not notified) and incompatible
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                                      with the common market.
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.


title: Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Jean-Pierre Landuyt against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-94/95)

text:
No C 208/26           EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 8 . 95
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995                    Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Jean-Pierre Landuyt
by Bernard Laga , who runs a farm as part of the                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Landuyt-Laga farmers ' association ( GAEC ), whose                                                ( Case T-94/95 )
registered office is at Grisolles ( France ), represented by
Jean-Francois Le Petit, of the Rennes Bar, with an address                                          ( 95/C 208/58 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse Mai,
31 Grand'Rue .                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                    by Jean-Pierre Landuyt, who runs a farm as part of the
     pay the compensation provided for by the proposal for a             Landuyt-Laga        farmers '    association ( GAEC ),    whose
     Council Regulation COM(93 ) final submitted on                      registered office is at Grisolles ( France ), represented by
     13 May 1993 ( x ) and accordingly should determine the              Jean-Francois Le Petit, of the Rennes Bar, with an address
     amount pursuant to that proposal for a Regulation,                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                         31 Grand'Rue .
— order payment of default interest thereon of 8 % from                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
     19 May 1992 in accordance with Article 12 of that
     proposal for a Regulation,                                          — order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay the compensation provided for by the proposal for a
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                         Council Regulation COM(93 ) final submitted on
     pay the sum of fifty thousand French francs ( FF 50 000 )                13 May 1993 (^ and accordingly should determine the
     for irrecoverable costs, or the equivalent in ecus, and all              amount pursuant to that proposal for a Regulation,
     the costs .
                                                                         — order payment of default interest thereon of 8 % from
                                                                              19 May 1992 in accordance with Article 12 of that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           proposal for a Regulation,
The applicant is a farmer who, having given an undertaking               — order the Commission of the European Communities to
not to market milk pursuant to Council Regulation ( EEC )                     pay the sum of fifty thousand French francs ( FF50 000 )
No 1078/77, was allocated a provisional specific reference                    for irrecoverable costs, or the equivalent in ecus, and all
                                                                              the costs .
 quantity in 1989 and offered compensation under
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ; his action centres around
 the decision of the Office National Interprofessionnel du               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Lait ( National Milk Trades Board , ONILAIT) refusing to                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 pay him that compensation on the ground that his specific                in Case T-93/95 Laga v. Commission .
 reference quantity cannot be regarded as being definitive,
 since he has never personally resumed milk production,                   (') OJ No C 157, 9 . 6 . 1993 , p . 11 .
 contrary to Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
 No 857/ 84 .
                                          tor
 The applicant considers that the contested decision is the
 result of a mistaken assessment of the facts of the matter by            Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Enosi
 the competent authority. He points out in particular that                Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados against the Commission of
 because the prefectural decision allocating him a provisional                              the European Communities
 specific reference quantity was taken unduly late, he had                                        ( Case T-103/95 )
 already rotated the crops on an area of 188 hectares 20
 centares which he farmed within the Landuyt-Laga farmers '                                           95/C 208/59 )
 association ( GAEC ), planting wheat and colza, whereas a
 maize crop would have been needed in order to feed cattle .                               (Language of the case: Greek)
 That was why the applicant found himself obliged to rent
 cows, which he had to do because he was unable to replenish              An action against the Commission of the European
 a herd in time . Temporary rental of that sort is not in any             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 way contrary to custom and practice, whereas it has been                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1995 by
 established that he possessed the necessary plant for milk               the Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados ( ETE ), established
 production, and the schedule of analyses performed by                    in Athens , represented by Ioannis Yeorgakis and Maria
 Uriane demonstrates that those cows formed part of the                   Golfinopoulou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
 applicant's farming operation as a whole .                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom Loesch,
                                                                          Avocat, 11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
  (M OJ No C 157, 9 . 6 . 1993 , p . 11 .                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          — annul the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
                                                                               in connection with a proceeding under Article 85 of the


title: Case C-224/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of the                           from investing their capital in shares quoted on markets
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                             other than Spanish regulated markets; moreover, it is
                                                                                probably the case that such legislation prevents those
                                                                                undertakings whose shares are quoted in such markets
                           (Case C-219/03)                                       from raising capital in Spain. Furthermore, the differen-
                                                                                tiated treatment affects the conduct of undertakings which
                                                                                issue shares, in particular because Spanish undertakings,
                           (2003/C 184/35)                                       which are more likely to have shareholders who are liable
                                                                                to Spanish income tax, are encouraged to see to it that
                                                                                their shares are quoted on a Spanish regulated market so
                                                                                that their shareholders may benefit from a more favour-
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        able tax regime.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Díaz-Llanos La Roche and L. Escobar Guer-                Moreover, the Spanish legislation in issue also constitutes an
rero, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           obstacle to the freedom to provide services, guaranteed under
                                                                           Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, inasmuch
                                                                           as it hinders markets other than Spanish regulated markets
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           from providing services to Spanish undertakings by creating a
                                                                           split in the European market in services provided by the stock
1.    Declare that, with regard to the tax on capital gains made           markets and exchanges, creating a captive market which
      on transfers since 1 January 1997 of shares purchased                favours Spanish regulated markets. Under those circumstances,
      prior to 31 December 1994, the Kingdom of Spain has                  such undertakings are not free to choose another European
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 of         market from among those which offer a better service.
      the EC Treaty and the corresponding Articles 36 and 40
      of the EEA Agreement inasmuch as it established a tax
      regime which is less favourable to shares quoted in
      markets other than Spanish regulated markets; and
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Italian Republic
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission is of the view that Spanish legislation                                              (Case C-224/03)
concerning income tax on natural persons is incompatible
with Community law and constitutes an obstacle to the free
movement of capital and the freedom to provide services so                                          (2003/C 184/36)
far as concerns tax on capital gains made on transfers since
1 January 1997 of shares purchased prior to 31 December
1994. Such legislation establishes for Spanish regulated markets
a more favourable tax regime than that applicable to shares
quoted on other markets:                                                   An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2003, by the Italian Republic,
when determining the reduction of the amount of the taxable                represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted
capital gain, a higher weighting is applied to shares quoted on            by State Advocate, Maurizio Fiorilli.
Spanish regulated markets than to shares quoted on other
markets (25 % as compared to 14,28 %). The latter are there-
fore subjected to a more onerous tax burden.                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     in order not to be liable to tax, shares quoted on markets
                                                                           —     Declare that, under Article 97 of the Treaty establishing
      other than Spanish regulated markets must have been
                                                                                the European Coal and Steel Community, with effect from
      owned by their proprietor for longer (eight years instead
                                                                                24 July 2002 the powers and competence of the
      of five).
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities established
                                                                                by Article 9 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 (Merger Treaty)
—     The Spanish legislation is thus contrary to Article 56 EC                  — in the sectors assigned under the ECSC Treaty to the
      and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European                            High Authority of the ECSC — have lapsed, with the
      Economic Area (EEA) inasmuch as it constitutes an                          result that any measure adopted or to be adopted by it in
      obstacle to the free movement of capital. By establishing                  those sectors which have not formed the subject-matter of
      a less-favourable tax treatment, the Spanish legislation                   a new agreement by the signatory states, is to be deemed
      appears to deter natural persons liable to income tax                      null and void and of no effect.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/21
Pleas in law and new arguments                                          vehicle registered abroad. They require payment of the car tax
                                                                        chargeable in Finland before the vehicle may be used. Car tax
In general terms, for the provisions of an international treaty         is to be levied on vehicles which are used in traffic in Finland,
to be able to continue to have effect after its natural expiry a        even to a small extent, unless a specific exception is laid down
decision in that behalf must be taken in concertation by the            by law.
signatory States and only by them.
No joint position was adopted by the signatory States of the            Under the Finnish provisions, car tax is to be paid on a vehicle
ECSC Treaty, prior to the expiry thereof, with a view to                before it is used on Finnish territory. If the vehicle is never-
extending its validity in its entirety and to providing for a           theless used without paying tax in cases in which tax should
general transitional regime to ensure the continuance in effect         have been regarded as paid, the authorities levy tax on the
of all its provisions. Instead the signatory States allowed the         vehicle.
ECSC Treaty to be extinguished, merely regulating the transfer
of ECSC provisions to the EC regime in regard to certain
sectors. In particular, no joint provision was made in regard           The Finnish legislation, contrary to Article 39 EC, prevents the
to a transitional regime in competition matters under the ECSC          realisation of freedom of movement of workers, because
Treaty. In the case of investigations under way at the time of          employees living in Finland cannot use a car provided by their
expiry of the ECSC Treaty such expiry could not be claimed to           employer and registered in another Member State for their
be ‘non-retroactive’ since that would entail the continuance in         work in Finland, if tax is not paid on the car in Finland. As
effect of its provisions, no right, obligation or legal situation       a result of the Finnish legislation, employees resident in Finland
arising during the currency of the Treaty itself.                       cannot accept an offer of work from a neighbouring State of
                                                                        the European Union where the use in both countries of a car
From the applicant's point of view, absorption of the ECSC              provided by the employer is part of the work.
rules within the EC rules may occur only by way of an
instrument manifesting the common will in that regard of the
signatory states.                                                       Companies operating in another Member State cannot engage
                                                                        employees living in Finland because they cannot use a car
                                                                        registered in another country in Finland if Finnish tax has not
                                                                        been paid on the car. The practice discriminates in particular
                                                                        against cross-frontier workers living in Finland, who cannot
                                                                        use a car provided by the employer for daily work journeys
                                                                        between the home and the workplace. The use of a car
                                                                        provided by the employer is often a regular part of the
Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of                      remuneration. A Member State breaches the duty of coopera-
the European Communities against the Republic of                        tion under Article 10 EC if the national measures of the
                             Finland                                    Member State prevent freedom of movement in such a way
                                                                        that workers living in another Member State cannot pursue
                         (Case C-232/03)                                their occupation in the other Member State.
                         (2003/C 184/37)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Nacional by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
                                                                        case of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A.
1.    Declare that, by preventing cross-frontier workers from                          against INSALUD (now INGESA)
      benefiting from certain benefits provided to them by their
      employers on the sole ground that the workers in ques-
      tion live in the Republic of Finland, into which the                                       (Case C-234/03)
      vehicles owned by their employers have been imported,
      the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC;                                                            (2003/C 184/38)
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (National High Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 2 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Provisions of Finnish legislation limit the possibility for a           of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A. against
person permanently resident in Finland to use in Finland a              INSALUD (now INGESA) on the following questions:


title: Case C-282/16: Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl v Heta Asset Resolution AG

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl v Heta Asset Resolution AG
   (Case C-282/16) (1)

   (2017/C 086/28)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case C-25/12 P: Order of the Court of 4 July 2012 — Gino Trevisanato v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/7

         Order of the Court of 4 July 2012 — Gino Trevisanato v European Commission
   (Case C-25/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Application seeking an order that the Commission take a position concerning the interpretation and the transposition of a directive - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 303/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Gino Trevisanato (represented by L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission

      Re:

   Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11 Trevisanato v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed an action seeking an order that the Commission take a position on the complaint lodged by the applicant — Failure by the Commission to adopt a binding opinion on the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Conditions for application of Article 111 of the Rules and Procedures of the General Court

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Trevisanato is ordered to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-493/04: Action brought on 22 December 2004 by Deutsche Post AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/29

         Action brought on 22 December 2004 by Deutsche Post AG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-493/04)
   (2005/C 31/55)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 December 2004 by Deutsche Post AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's Decision of 20 October 2004 (K(2004)4001/3) on the German legal framework governing the provision of postal services, in particular access by private postal service providers and consolidators to the public postal network and the special tariffs connected therewith (BdKEP – Beschränkungen im Bereich der Postvorbereitung (restrictions on postal services);

               2.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments of Deutsche Post AG in the proceedings brought under Article 230(4) EC correspond, with regard to Article 82 EC and the Postal Service Directive 97/67/EC (1), to those of Case T-490/04.

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14).


title: Case C-82/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of frozen bakery products)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-82/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of frozen bakery products)
   (2006/C 281/20)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and M. Apessos, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — National legislation considering the ‘bake-off’ process (thawing and reheating of pre-baked and frozen bread) to be a process of manufacturing bread and allowing only bakeries to sell bread manufactured in that way.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manufacturing bread and by making it subject to the conditions prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005


title: Case T-348/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2014  — Kadhaf Al Dam v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2014 — Kadhaf Al Dam v Council
   (Case T-348/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment - Non-contractual liability))
   2014/C 388/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahmed Mohammed Kadhaf Al Dam (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: H. de Charette, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, agents)

      Re:

   First, action for partial annulment of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 1), Council Decision 2013/182/CFSP of 22 April 2013 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 50), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 1) and of Council Decision 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 183, p. 52), in so far as those acts cover the applicant and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decisions 2013/182/CFSP of 22 April 2013 and 2014/380/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it retains the name of Mr Ahmed Mohammed Kadhaf Al Dam on the lists contained in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 in so far as it retains the name of Mr Kadhaf Al Dam on the list contained in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

               3.

               Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/182, Decision 2014/380 and Implementing Regulation No 689/2014 shall be maintained in respect of Mr Kadhaf Al Dam until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until the Court of Justice’s decision.

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               5.

               Orders Mr Kadhaf Al Dam to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Council in connection with his claim for damages.

               6.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadhaf Al Dam in connection with the action for annulment.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-519/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (Appeal — State aid — State aid scheme implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities — Decision No 2003/515/EC — Incompatibility with the common market — Transitional provision — Admissibility — Standing to bring proceedings — Interest in bringing proceedings — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV
   (Case C-519/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities - Decision No 2003/515/EC - Incompatibility with the common market - Transitional provision - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest in bringing proceedings - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)
   2009/C 267/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, formerly Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and W. Geursen, advocaten)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV (formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV) v Commission annulling Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had already lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case F-117/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — Failure to include on the list of officials promoted — 2004 promotion exercise — Priority Points — Merit — Seniority — Admissibility)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case F-117/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Failure to include on the list of officials promoted - 2004 promotion exercise - Priority Points - Merit - Seniority - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 199/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exercise, inasmuch as the applicant's name did not appear in that list, and annulment of the decision allocating priority points to the applicant in that period.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

                  The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

                  The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006, p. 35.


title: Case T-331/03: Action brought on 21 September 2003 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.11.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/31
In support of her claims, she alleges, apart from the fact of                   The Joint Committee on Staff Reports did not express an
having been the victim of harassment in the work place, an                      opinion on all the criticisms levelled by the applicant and
error in the reasoning and irregularity in the promotion                        he was not consulted beforehand;
procedure, in that the contested decision does not enable her
to know if it was really the Appointing Authority which made              —     that there was in the circumstances of the case a manifest
the choice provided for by Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,                 error of appreciation inasmuch as, on the one hand, the
or whether it confined itself to confirming the conclusions of                  staff report at issue contains criticisms to which voice
the Consultative Commission on Promotions (CCP).                                was never given at the material time, which are strongly
                                                                                contested and which are not borne out by any evidence
                                                                                and as, on the other, the defendant puts forward a
                                                                                problem which arose after the period covered by the
                                                                                report.
                                                                          Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse by the Commission of its
Action brought on 21 September 2003 by Michael Cwik                       powers and mental harassment.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-331/03)
                         (2003/C 289/64)
                                                                          Action brought on 29 September 2003 by European
                                                                          Service Network against the Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   Communities
                                                                                (Case T-332/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 289/65)
European Communities on 21 September 2003 by Michael
Cwik, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the Secretary General’s decision of 31 October                European Communities on 29 September 2003 by European
      2002 confirming unamended the applicant’s staff report              Service Network, established in Brussels, represented by René
      for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                         Steichen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 6 500;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                          —     annul Invitation to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS —
                                                                                Lot 1;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
refusal to amend his staff report for the period 1999/2001.               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant submitted a tender pursuant to lot 1 of Invitation
In support of his claims he puts forward the following                    to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS. The applicant was not
arguments:                                                                successful.
—     that there was a breach of the pre-litigation procedure
      because, inter alia, the staff report in question was drawn         The applicant contests the award of the contract to the
      up on the basis of two memos drafted by two of his                  successful tenderer. According to the applicant, the Com-
      former line managers. It is not clear whether the first of          mission did not comply with the principle of equal treatment
      those two memos refers to the period concerned, while               of tenderers or the rule of transparency in the tendering
      the second refers to matters taking place after that period.        procedure.


title: Case C-188/08: Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/7

         Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-188/08)
   (2008/C 197/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that in so far as domestic waste waters disposed of through septic tanks and other individual treatment systems in the countryside are not, for purposes of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2), covered by other Community or Irish legislation, Ireland has, by failing in respect of the said domestic waste waters to fully and correctly transpose into its domestic legislation the requirements of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the said Directive and under the Treaty establishing the European Community.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission maintains that in Ireland there is neither domestic legislation nor Community legislation which provides for the management in accordance with the Directive, of domestic waste waters disposed of through septic tanks and other individual treatment systems outside of larger agglomerations.
   In the absence of other legislation, Ireland is obliged to transpose and apply the requirements of the Directive to such waste waters. However, Ireland has not transposed nor claimed to have translposed these requirements. Furthermore, it has not complied with those requirements in practice. More particularly, Ireland has not, for the waste waters in question:

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 4 of the Directive. Transposition of Article 4 is important because it sets out environmental objectives that should be pursued and respected in relation to other duties of the Directive. The Commission submits that there is also a failure to comply with Article 4 in practice in the Lough Leane catchment, this is borne out by the evidence it has adduced of the environmental harm resulting from a failure to control adequately septic tanks.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 7 of the Directive. Article 7 is important because it inter alia provides for territory-wide forward planning of arrangements for disposal of waste at suitable sites in order to avoid environmental harm. Apart from failing to transpose Article 7 of the Directive, Ireland has in practice failed to put in place plans that satisfy the requirements of Article 7 in relation to septic tanks and other individual treatment systems.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 8 of the Directive. Article 8 is important because it stipulates that waste is disposed of in accordance with the Directive. There is also a failure to comply with Article 8 in practice in Ireland, since Ireland does not ensure that domestic waste waters are disposed of in accordance with the Directive.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 9 of the Directive. Article 9 is important since it provides for a formal prior approval with environmental safeguards of a waste disposal operation. Such controls as Ireland applies in practice to septic tanks and other individual treatment systems are not equivalent and there is therefore a failure in practice to comply with Article 9.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 10 of the Directive. The Commission considers that the disposal of waste waters through septic tanks or other individual systems will almost always in practice amount to a disposal operation for purposes of the Directive. However, it is conceivable that, in some circumstances, an argument might be made for considering the treatment method to be a recovery operation. This might be the case, for example, for dry composting of domestic waste waters with a view to their subsequent use as a fertilizer. Accordingly, the Commission has included Article 10 in the present Application.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 11 of the Directive. Ireland does not claim, for purposes of Article 11(3) or otherwise, to have transposed the provisions of Article 11 of the Directive, but in so far as it may purport to do so, the Commission would contend that such rules as it has put in place for septic tanks and other individual treatment systems do not amount to a transposition of Article 11(1) and (2) of the Directive. In particular, the rules applicable in Ireland do not ensure that the conditions imposed in Article 4 of the Directive are respected. Moreover, there is no system of registration of septic tanks and other individual treatment systems.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 12 of the Directive. Article 12 is important in relation to septic tanks and other individual treatment systems in as much as, to operate effectively; such systems require periodic removal and disposal of sludges. To the extent that there are professional services involved in such removal and disposal, they are not addressed in Irish law and practice in accordance with the Directive.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 13 of the Directive. Article 13 is important since, without proper maintenance, even well-sited and well-installed septic tanks and other individual treatment systems can malfunction and cause environmental harm. A system of inspections is therefore crucial. The evidence of the Lough Leane study shows that, apart from failing to transpose the requirements of Article 13 of the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those requirements in practice in relation to septic tanks and other individual treatment systems.

               —

               transposed the provisions of Article 14 of the Directive. Article 14 of the Directive is important in terms of record-keeping that helps ensure that septic tanks and other individual treatment systems do not become overloaded and are properly maintained. The evidence of the Lough Leane study shows that, apart from failing to transpose the requirements of Article 14 of the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those requirements in practice in relation to septic tanks and other individual treatment systems.

      (1)  OJ L 194, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78, p. 32.


title: Case T-52/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2009 — Nycomed Danmark v EMEA (Application for interim measures — Marketing authorisation for a medicinal product — Ultrasound echocardiographic imaging agent for diagnostic purposes (perflubutane) — Refusal by the EMEA to grant a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan — Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/43

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2009 — Nycomed Danmark v EMEA
   (Case T-52/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Marketing authorisation for a medicinal product - Ultrasound echocardiographic imaging agent for diagnostic purposes (perflubutane) - Refusal by the EMEA to grant a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan - Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures - No urgency)
   2009/C 141/91
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nycomed Danmark ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek and H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, first, for suspension of the operation of the EMEA’s decision of 28 November 2008 rejecting the application for a product-specific waiver concerning perflubutane and, secondly, for the grant of interim measures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-682/11 P: Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 — Authentication of euro coins — Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation — Article 8(2) — Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person directly concerned)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/7

         Order of the Court of 6 December 2012 — GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-682/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 - Authentication of euro coins - Handling of euro coins unfit for circulation - Article 8(2) - Right of Member States to refuse to reimburse euro coins unfit for circulation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person directly concerned)
   2013/C 108/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and M. Simm, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS v Parliament and Council, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1) — Acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons — Condition of direct concern

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-102/03 Centro informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli investimenti in Sicilia SpA (CIS) v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund — Withdrawal of financial assistance — Failure to take into consideration expenditure committed by the beneficiary of the assistance — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Obligation to give reasons — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2005
   in Case T-102/03 Centro informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli investimenti in Sicilia SpA (CIS) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund - Withdrawal of financial assistance - Failure to take into consideration expenditure committed by the beneficiary of the assistance - Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Obligation to give reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion)
   (2005/C 205/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-102/03: Centro informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli investimenti in Sicilia SpA (CIS), established in Catania (Italy), represented by A. Scuderi and G. Motta, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Flynn, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 4155 of 15 November 2002, relative to the withdrawal of assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C (93) 256/4 of 16 February 1993 in the form of a global grant in respect of the activities of an information centre for collaboration between undertakings and the promotion of investment and recovery of the advance paid by the Commission as part of that assistance — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C (2002) 4155 of 15 November 2002 on the withdrawal of assistance from the European Regional Development Fund granted by Commission Decision C (93) 256/4 of 16 February 1993 in so far as it withdraws assistance concerning the expenditure effected by the Centro informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli investimenti in Sicilia SpA in the certified amount of ITL 688 505 743;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-290/10 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Franssons Verkstäder AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH (Appeal — Action before the General Court against a decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility due to delay — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Franssons Verkstäder AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH
   (Case C-290/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action before the General Court against a decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility due to delay - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 80/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Franssons Verkstäder AB (represented by: O. Öhlén, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Lindner Recyclingtech GmbH

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 May 2010 in Case T-98/10 Franssons Verkstäder v OHIM in which the General Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of Community design No 253778-0001 (chaffcutters) against decision R 690/2007-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 October 2009 annulling the decision of the Invalidity Division which rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Lindner Recyclingtech — Time-limit allowed for bringing proceedings — Clear inadmissibility

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Franssons Verkstäder AB shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-194/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission (Competition — Mergers — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — International express small package delivery services in the EEA — Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS — Decision declaring the merger incompatible with the internal market — Likely effects on prices — Econometric analysis — Rights of defence)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission
   (Case T-194/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Mergers - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - International express small package delivery services in the EEA - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Decision declaring the merger incompatible with the internal market - Likely effects on prices - Econometric analysis - Rights of defence))
   (2017/C 121/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented initially by A. Ryan, B. Graham, Solicitors, W. Knibbeler and P. Stamou, lawyers, and then by A. Ryan, W. Knibbeler, P. Stamou, A. Pliego Selie, F. Hoseinian and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan, N. von Lingen and H. Leupold, and subsequently by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: FedEx Corp. (Memphis, Tennessee, United States) (represented initially by F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, then by F. Carlin, G. Bushell and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders FedEx Corp. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.