title: Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-329/96)

text:
No C 370/4           I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7 . 12 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                   Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Genova by order of that court of 26 September 1996 in the                   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
case of Ente Autonoma Fiera Internazionale di Genova
                                                                                Case C-330/96
against Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato/Ispettorato
        Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato di Genova                                                  ( 96/C 370/09 )
                            ( Case C-327/96 )
                              ( 96/C 370/07 )
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the European Communities, represented by Maria
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di                        Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 26 September 1996 ,                    service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
received at the Court Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a                 Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
preliminary ruling in the case of Ente Autonoma Fiera                    Centre, Kirchberg.
Internazionale di Genova against Ministero delle Finanze
dello Stato/Ispettorato Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato
di Genova on the question of the interpretation of                       The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
Articles 86, 3 , 5 , 30 and 52 of the Treaty in relation to              failing to adopt or, in the alternative , to communicate to the
Article 15 of the Schedule of Requirements for premises for              Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
the retail sale of monopoly goods in so far as it imposes on             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Commission Directive 91 /244/EEC 0 ) of
retailers a positive obligation, supported by appropriate
                                                                         6 March 1991 amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC on
penalties, to promote domestically produced fine tobacco
and not to engage in, or allow, advertising for foreign                  the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic is in
product brands and tobaccos, whether from inside or                      breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                         Directive .
outside the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The period within which the Member States were to
Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on
                                                                         31 July 1994 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic
                            ( Case C-329/96 )                            Republic has still not complied with the Directive .
                              ( 96/C 370/08 )
                                                                         f 1 ) OJNoL115 , 8 . 5 . 1991 , p . 41 .
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria
Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-331/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by                                          ( 96/C 370/ 10 )
failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC (!) of 21 May                    the Court of Justice on 8 October 199 6 by the Commission
 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild                of the European Communities, represented by Maria
fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its               Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
obligations under the Treaty and that Directive .                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The period within which the Member States were to                        The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on                    failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
 5 June 1992 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic                     Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
Republic has still not complied with the Directive.                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September
 (!) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7 . 1992, p . 7.                                  1992 on air pollution by ozone f 1 ), the Hellenic Republic is
                                                                          in breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                          Directive .


title: Case C-276/02: Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 219/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.9.2002
purview of the Member States. However, the contested regu-              Action brought on 30 July 2002 by the Commission of
lation concerns, as evidenced by its title, exclusively adminis-         the European Communities against the French Republic
trative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT) in
the internal market and not the VAT system properly speaking.
                                                                                (Case C-280/02)
( 1) OJ 2002 L 128, p. 1.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/18)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July
Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain                  2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-276/02)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                          (2002/C 219/17)                               the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not identifying certain areas as sensitive
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     areas with respect to eutrophication, in the catchment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  areas of Seine-Normandie, Loire-Bretagne, Artois-Picardie
Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          and Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, and not subjecting to
represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,                   more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                      from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.)
Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.                                            of more than 10 000 into sensitive areas or areas which
                                                                              should have been identified as sensitive, the French
                                                                              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Article 5(1) and (2) of and Annex II to Directive 91/271/
                                                                              EEC (1);
—     declare the decision of the Commission of 14 May 2002
      null and void in so far as the Commission therein declared        —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      that the continued failure of GEA (Grupo de Empresas
      Álvarez) to pay taxes and social security contributions
      amounts a grant of State aid incompatible with the
      common market, and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     Incomplete identification of sensitive areas: The French
                                                                              authorities wrongly limited themselves to identifying
                                                                              bodies of water where they consider eutrophication to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               established; they thus did not take account of the
                                                                              obligation also to identify as sensitive, in accordance with
                                                                              Annex II to the Directive, bodies of water ‘which in the
The only thing that has happened is the liquidation of an                     near future may become eutrophic if protective action is
undertaking in crisis, preceded by a general procedure for the                not taken’. For that reason, or because eutrophication
suspension of payments. That procedure, initiated and directed                should already have been identified, the Commission
by the court, enables creditors to reach agreements with the                  considers that the French Republic has failed to identify,
debtor undertaking which, in comparison with an immediate                     in breach of its obligations pursuant to Article 5(1) of
liquidation, increase the likelihood of the undertaking’s recov-              and Annex II to the Directive:
ery and the payment of some of its debts. The same procedure
for the suspension of payments may, of course, be sought
and obtained by any competing undertakings which bring                        —     in Seine-Normandie: the Seine bay, the Seine and its
complaints, should they to find themselves in a situation of                        tributaries downstream from its confluence with the
cessation of payments. The Commission has thus failed to                            Andelle;
demonstrate that there has been any State aid subject to
Article 87 EC.
                                                                              —     in Loire-Bretagne: Lorient harbour, the Elorn estuary,
                                                                                the bay of Douarnenez, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of
                                                                                Morbihan, the bay of Vilaine and the Sèvre-Niortaise;


title: Case T-97/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by Laura Gnemmi and EugéniaAguiar against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/82

         Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Laura Gnemmi and Eugénia Aguiar against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-97/04)
   (2004/C 106/161)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 March 2004 by Laura Gnemmi, residing in Hünsdorf (Luxembourg), and Eugénia Aguiar, residing in Brussels, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the 2001-2002 reports in so far as the applicants are concerned;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the applicants' career development reports (REC/CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay same.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the present case, the pleas in law and main arguments invoked by the applicants are identical to those invoked by the applicants in Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of 20 December 1994, in the cases of Société Comateb and Others v. Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects (Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208/ 15
Action brought on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                    References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                       d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
                                  Germany                                  20 December 1994 , in the cases of Societe Comateb and
                                                                           Others v. Directeur General des Douanes et Droits
                             ( Case C-191 /95 )
                                                                                Indirects
                               ( 95/C 208/29 )
                                                                                ( Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/30 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities on 16 June 1995 by the Commission of the                       European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
European Communities, represented by Jiirgen Grunwald ,                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Paris VII, of 20 December 1994,
of the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for                     which were received at the Court Registry on 1 9 June 1 995 ,
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                  for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Société Comateb,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            Société Panigua, Société Edouard et Fils , Société de
                                                                           Distribution de Vins et Liqueurs , Société Etablissements
                                                                           André Haan, Société Diffusion Générale de Quincaillerie,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Société Diffusion Générale, Société Cama Renault, Société
                                                                           SCP Ovide et Dorville , Société Ducros Guadeloupe , Société
                                                                           Comptoir Commercial Caraïbes, Société Giafa , Société
1 . declare that, by not providing for appropriate penalties               LVS, Société Catherine et Jean-Claude Tabar Nouval ,
      in cases where companies limited by shares fail to
                                                                           Société L'Heure et L'Or, Société Général Bazar Bricolage,
      disclose their annual accounts, the Federal Republic of              Société Grain d'Or, Société Cash Service, Etablissements
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            Efira, Société Farandole, Société Carat, Société Rio, Société
      Treaty and under First Council Directive 68/ 15 1 /EEC of            Guadeloupéenne de Distribution Moderne, Société
      9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for                Martinique        Automobiles ,      Société     Socovi   Sàrl ,
      the protection of the interests of members and others,               Etablissements Gabriel Vangout et Cie , Sàrl and Société
      are required by Member States of companies within the                Simat Guadeloupe Sàrl v . Directeur Général des Douanes et
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the                 Droits Indirects, on the following question:
      Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
      equivalent throughout the Community (') and Fourth
      Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on                does the fact that a Member State objects to the repayment
      Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g ) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of       of a charge, levied in breach of Community law, on the
      certain types of companies ( 2 );                                    ground that it has been passed on to the purchaser make it
                                                                           virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain
                                                                           reimbursement, where the undertaking concerned is
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                       required by the law of that Member State to incorporate the
      costs .                                                              charge in the cost price of the goods sold ?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Effective implementation of the above Directives requires
that appropriate penalties be provided for within the                      Appeal by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
meaning of Article 6 of Directive 68/151 /EEC . The Federal                Udine, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Republic of Germany has so far failed to do so . Although                  6 April 1995 in Case T-143/89 , Ferriere Nord Spa v.
Paragraph 335 ( 6 ) of the Handelsgesetzbuch ( Commercial                          Commission of the European Communities
Code ) provides for a penalty payment, the Registergericht
( Registration Court) does not take any action unless a                                          ( Case C-219/95 P)
member, a creditor or the works council of the company                                               ( 95/C 208/31 )
requests it to do so .
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 1 995 by
Because of the lack of legal sanctions and a widespread open               the Court of First Instance in Case T-143 / 89 between
disregard in Germany of Community law disclosure                           Ferriere Nord SpA and the Commission was brought before
requirements, disclosure of company results in that country                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
is abnormally low.                                                         14 June 1995 by Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo,
                                                                           Udine, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona , with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .                      Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
( 2 ) OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p . 11 .
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance ,


title: Case T-366/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Anheuser-Busch/OHIM

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/23

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Anheuser-Busch/OHIM
   (Case T-366/05)
   (2005/C 330/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (St. Louis, USA) [represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, G. Burkhart, lawyers]

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2), namely insofar as the application was rejected for goods in class 33, and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ for goods in classes 32 and 33 — application No 1 603 489

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

      Mark or sign cited: The international figurative marks and word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ and ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’ for goods in classes 31 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks. The goods are sufficiently dissimilar to exclude any confusion on the part of the consumer.


title: Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co and Others against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case T-176/98)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/27
The applicant's fourth plea is that the treatment reserved        Action brought on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
to good-faith brand diversification advertising is                       Boukouvalas against the European Parliament
disproportionate. In view of the fact that advertising for                             (Case T-193/98)
tobacco products is granted a milder treatment, the
treatment of good-faith brand diversification advertising is                            (1999/C 48/59)
also discriminatory.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
The applicant's fifth plea is that the advertising ban
enacted by the Directive infringes its right to freedom of
speech and in particular cannot be justified under                An action against the European Parliament was brought
Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rights.                                                           Communities on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
                                                                  Boukouvalas, an official of the European Parliament,
The applicant's sixth plea is that the Directive deprives         resident in Brussels, represented by Professor Kharis
holders of trade-mark rights of the substance of their            Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for
rights and thus infringes the fundamental rights to               service in Luxembourg at the Office of VeÂronique
property and of freedom of trade, as well as the Paris            Duhaubois, 139 Rue Schetzel, L-2518.
Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð find the action admissible;
Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Alma Media                   Ð hold to be unlawful and annul (a) the implied refusal
Group Advertising SA & Co and Others against the                      of the defendant's staff to pay, in respect of the
European Parliament and the Council of the European                   applicant's father and mother, the allowance for
                           Union                                      persons treated as if they were dependent children,
                                                                      during the period from 1 August 1997 to 31 July
                      (Case T-176/98)                                 1998, notwithstanding the decision of the
                       (1999/C 48/58)                                 Secretary-General of 28 January 1998 and (b)
                                                                      Decision No 26039 of 9 September 1998, of the
                                                                      defendant finding that the applicant is not entitled to
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      the above allowance;
An action against the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union was brought before the              Ð order the defendant to pay that allowance to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                applicant for the abovementioned period, together
23 October 1998 by Alma Media Group Advertising SA &                  with interest for late payment at 8 % from the date
Co and Others, represented by Helen Papaconstantinou,                 upon which each monthly payment became due;
Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                  Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant's legal costs,
                                                                      and to so order even if the action is dismissed, because
                                                                      there are exceptional circumstances within the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of
                                                                      the Rules of Procedure, in particular circumstances of
Ð annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament                 personal impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                          the application.
    approximation of the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    products published (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), and
                                                                  Infringement of Article 90 of the Staff
Ð order the European Parliament and the Council of the            Regulations and of the principles of the
    European Union to pay the costs.                              protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                  proper administration
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                  According to the applicant, any favourable reply by the
The grounds of the present application and its main               appointing authority to an official's administrative
arguments are those raised in Case T-172/98 Salamander            complaint must be binding on that body and, in any
v. Parliament and Council.                                        event, the subsequent revocation or amendment of the
                                                                  reply cannot retroactively deprive the official of the rights
                                                                  which flowed from it.


title: Case T-210/10: Action brought on 5 May 2010 — Condé v Council

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/39

         Action brought on 5 May 2010 — Condé v Council
   (Case T-210/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mamoudou Condé (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen under Article 6 of that regulation.
   In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy since he was not informed of the rights of appeal available to him;

               —

               an infringement of his rights of defence since he was not informed of the evidence against him;

               —

               an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of his right to property.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 346, p. 26.


title: Case T-830/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Farahat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Farahat v Council
   (Case T-830/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))
   (2016/C 392/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Farahat (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, P. Saini QC, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they apply to Mohamed Farahat;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Farahat.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.


title: Case C-408/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 July 2015 by Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co.KG, Böhm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG, Deutsche Saatveredelung AG, Ernst Benary, Samenzucht GmbH, Freiherr Von Moreau Saatzucht GmbH, Hybro Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Klemm + Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, KWS Saat AG, Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG, Nordsaat Saatzuchts GmbH, Peter Franck-Oberaspach, P. H. Petersen Saatzucht Lundsgaard GmbH, Saatzucht Streng — Engelen GmbH & Co. KG, Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Strube Research GmbH & Co. KG, Gartenbau und Spezialkulturen Westhoff GbR, W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2015 in Case T-559/14: Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/5

         Appeal brought on 24 July 2015 by Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co.KG, Böhm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG, Deutsche Saatveredelung AG, Ernst Benary, Samenzucht GmbH, Freiherr Von Moreau Saatzucht GmbH, Hybro Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Klemm + Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, KWS Saat AG, Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG, Nordsaat Saatzuchts GmbH, Peter Franck-Oberaspach, P. H. Petersen Saatzucht Lundsgaard GmbH, Saatzucht Streng — Engelen GmbH & Co. KG, Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Strube Research GmbH & Co. KG, Gartenbau und Spezialkulturen Westhoff GbR, W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2015 in Case T-559/14: Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-408/15 P)
   (2015/C 328/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co.KG, Böhm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG, Deutsche Saatveredelung AG, Ernst Benary, Samenzucht GmbH, Freiherr Von Moreau Saatzucht GmbH, Hybro Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Klemm + Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, KWS Saat AG, Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG, Nordsaat Saatzuchts GmbH, Peter Franck-Oberaspach, P. H. Petersen Saatzucht Lundsgaard GmbH, Saatzucht Streng — Engelen GmbH & Co. KG, Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG, Strube Research GmbH & Co. KG, Gartenbau und Spezialkulturen Westhoff GbR, W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. de Jong, avocat, P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Find that the General Court, in its Order in Case T-559/14, erred in law when it found that the appellants are not individually concerned by Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union;

               —

               Set aside in whole the Order of the General Court in Case T-559/14, and to declare that the appellants are directly and individually concerned by the contested Regulation, and therefore declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for Judgment on the merits.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First ground of appeal — The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when it found that they are not individually concerned by the contested Regulation. They submit that they are individually concerned within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU because a legal conflict exists between two international treaties to which the EU is a party (the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity), the first of which implements Article 13 EU Charter on freedom of scientific research. Subsequently, both international treaties were implemented by the EU in two directly effective Regulations: the earlier Regulation 2100/94 recognizing that fundamental right of freedom of research to the benefit of the appellants, the later contested Regulation 511/2014 severely curtailing it. ln each Regulation, no legislative intervention at Member State level is required or even permitted under EU law, and no implementing or delegated acts are to be adopted at EU level.
   In that legal context, the appellants submit that they are individually (and directly) concerned within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU because the following conditions are fulfilled: they are members of a legal class of persons defined by a ‘peculiar legal attribute’ (as beneficiaries of a positive right of free access to commercial plant material, i.e. the breeders' exemption) which is not found in the contested Regulation itself but in another directly effective Regulation which requires no further implementation at national level; whereby the contested Regulation conflicts with higher rules of law, namely Article 13 of the EU Charter and an international agreement to which the EU is a party; whereby the legal class is closed and absolute, making the appellants not individually affected in socio-economic terms, but legally, since is only a single, fundamental breeders' exemption without ‘similar’ rights being affected.

      Second ground of appeal — The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law where it did not rule on whether the EU legislature was obliged to take particular account of the situation of the appellants on the basis of express provisions of higher-ranking rules of law, where the contested Regulation forces the appellants into a contractual relationship that impinges upon the higher-ranking rule of law, specifically Article 13 of the EU Charter.

      Third ground of appeal — The appellants submit that a finding of inadmissibility would lead to a gap in the system of EU judicial protection, impinging upon Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the one hand, plant breeders derive their right directly from the CPVR Regulation, which is the implementation by the EU of Article 13 EU Charter and international obligations of the EU under the UPOV Convention. On the other hand, the contested Regulation 511/2014 imposes a directly effective due diligence obligation, whereby the contested Regulation is itself the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol to which the EU is a contracting party. In both cases, absolutely no further implementation by either the EU institutions (in the form of regulatory EU acts), or by the Member States into their national laws, is necessary, or even legally permitted under EU law. As a consequence, Article 267 TFEU is not an actual possibility for judicial review, nor will there be regulatory acts within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The appellants submit that, when applying the criterion of paragraph 92 of the Inuit judgment (C-583/11 P) where the appropriate level of judicial review is linked to the responsibility for the implementation of the contested measure, the sole conclusion must be that, in this instance, the direct action under Article 263 TFEU is the only available and appropriate procedural avenue for judicial review.

      (1)  OJ L 150, p. 59.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-181/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles): Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Refusal by the holder of the marketing authorization to provide a copy to the applicant for the certificate)

text:
No C 74/6              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 23 January 1997
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
in Case C-171/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin              in Case C-181/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
joined party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungs                  the Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles ): Biogen Inc. v.
                               gericht ( ] )                                        Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA (')
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the                     (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary
Council of Association — Free movement of workers —
                                                                        protection certificate for medicinal products — Refusal by
Extension of a residence permit — Voluntary termination                 the holder of the marketing authorization to provide a
                of a contract of employment)                                       copy to the applicant for the certificate)
                            ( 97/C 74/ 10 )
                                                                                97/C 74/ 11 )
               (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                          (Language of the case: French)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-171 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
( Federal Administrative Court, Germany ) for a                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         published in the European Court Reports)
court between Recep Tetik and Land Berlin, joined party:
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht — on
the interpretation of the third indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of
Decision No      1 /80 of the Council of Association of                 In Case C-181 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
19 September 1980 on the development of the Association                 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de commerce de Nivel
between the European Economic Community and Turkey                      les ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                       pending before that court between Biogen Inc . and
Mancini, President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.                  Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA — on the
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                         interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of
Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A.                 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            protection certificate for medicinal products ( OJ No L 182,
a judgment on 23 January 1977, in which it has ruled as                 2 . 7. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed
follows :                                                               of J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber acting
                                                                        as President of the Sixth Chamber: C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
                                                                        Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm,
The third indent of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
                                                                        Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,
the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association between the European                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                        judgment on 23 January 1997, in which it has ruled :
Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as
meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally
employed for more than four years in a Member State,
who decides voluntarily to leave his employment in order                1 . Where a medicinal product is covered by several basic
to seek new work in the same Member State and is unable
                                                                            *patents, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of
immediately to enter into a new employment relationship,                     18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
enjoys in that State, for a reasonable period, a right of                    supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
residence for the purpose of seeking new paid employment                     products does not preclude the grant of a
there, provided that he continues to be duly registered                      supplementary protection certificate to each holder of
as belonging to the labour force of the Member                               a basic patent.
State concerned, complying where appropriate with the
requirements of the legislation in force in that State, for
instance by registering as a person seeking employment
and making himself available to the employment                          2 . Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not require the
authorities. It is for the Member State concerned and, in                    holder of the marketing authorization to provide the
the absence of legislation to that end, for the national                     patent holder with a copy of that authorization,
court before which the matter has been brought to fix                        referred to in Article 8 (1 ) (b) of the Regulation.
such a reasonable period, which must, however, be
sufficient not to jeopardize in fact the prospects of his
finding new employment.
                                                                        3 . Where the basic patent and the authorization to place
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                            the product on the market as a medicinal product are
                                                                             held by different persons and the patent holder is
                                                                             unable to provide a copy of that authorization in
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 74/7
     accordance with Article 8 (1 ) (b) of Regulation (EEC)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      No 1768/92, an application for a certificate must not                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
      be refused on that ground alone.
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                 in Case C-3 14/95 Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )
                                                                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                        Failure to transpose directives concerning public health
                                                                                and animal health into national law)
                                                                                97/C 74/ 13 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Second Chamber)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                       of 23 January 1997
in Case C-246/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium): Myrianne                             published in the European Court Reports)
                    Coen v. Belgian State ( ! )
(Temporary staff — Recruitment procedure — Member                       In Case C-314/95 : Commission of the European
States invited to propose candidates — Actions before the               Communities (Agent: Eugenio de March) v. Italian
                           national courts)                             Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza assisted by Pier Giorgio
                                                                        Ferri ) — application for a declaration that, by not
                             ( 97/C 74/ 12 )                            adopting within the prescribed periods the laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                        comply with Council Directives 92/45/EEC ( OJ No L 268 ,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         14 . 9 . 1992, p. 35 ), 92/46/EEC ( OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 .
                                                                        1992, p. 1 ), 92/65/EEC ( OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9. 1992, p. 54 ),
                                                                        92/88/EEC ( OJ No L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992, p . 24 ), 92/ 116/
                                                                        EEC ( OJ No L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 ), 92/117/EEC ( OJ No
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 ) and 92/118/EEC ( OJ No L 62,
           published in the European Court Reports)                     15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 49 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                        its obligations under those Directives and under the EC
                                                                        Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                        Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
In Case C-246/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty from the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom                 Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.
of Belgium for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  von Holstein, Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
pending before that court between Myrianne Coen and                     judgment on 23 January 1997 in which it:
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 179 of the
EC Treaty and of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities — the Court ( Second Chamber),                     1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.                     periods the laws, regulations and administrative
Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur), Judges; N.                            provisions necessary to comply with :
Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             — Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on
23 January 1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                public health and animal health problems relating
                                                                                to the killing of wild game and the placing on the
                                                                                market of wild-game meat,
Article 1 79 of the EC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of
the Staff Regulations are to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                             — Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992
the periods which those provisions prescribe for
                                                                                laying down the health rules for the production
 challenging a decision of the Commission cannot be
                                                                                and placing on the market of raw milk, heat
caused to run afresh by a judgment given by a court of a
                                                                                treated milk and milk-based products,
Member State finding an act of that State unlawful, where
 the act in question may have influenced the Commission
 decision which is to be challenged.                                         — Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992
                                                                                laying down animal health requirements governing
                                                                                trade in and imports into the Community of
 (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                animals, sperm, ova and embryos not subject to
                                                                                animal health requirements laid down in specific
                                                                                Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to
                                                                                Directive 90/425/EEC,


title: Case T-402/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission (Application for interim measures — Claim for remission of import duties of some food products — Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities — Applications for interim measures — Inadmissibility — No urgency)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission
   (Case T-402/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Claim for remission of import duties of some food products - Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities - Applications for interim measures - Inadmissibility - No urgency)
   2012/C 39/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Preparados Alimenticios del Sur, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: I. Acero Campos, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and L. Bouyon, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for interim measures, including suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission of 29 June 2011 informing the applicant of the reference to the Spanish authorities of the documents in the case relating to its claim for remission of import duties, so that those authorities can rule on that claim.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


C 258/40              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
       Removal from the register of Case T-271/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case T-284/97 (1)
                        (98/C 258/73)                                                      (98/C 258/74)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 18 June 1998 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            By order of 11 June 1998 the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Case T-271/97: Patrick Fischbach and Others v                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Commission of the European Communities.                           of Case T-284/97: Thierry Bigard v Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case C-448/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States — Common system of taxation applicable — Corporation tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Scope — Article 2(c) — Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt — Taxation at a zero rate)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV
   (Case C-448/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States - Common system of taxation applicable - Corporation tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Scope - Article 2(c) - Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt - Taxation at a zero rate))
   (2017/C 144/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgische Staat

      Defendants: Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be construed to the effect that Article 5(1) does not preclude legislation of a Member State whereby an advance tax on investment income is levied on dividends paid by a subsidiary established in that Member State to a fiscal investment institution established in another Member State which is subject to corporation tax at a zero rate, provided that all of its profits are paid to its shareholders, since such an institution does not constitute a ‘company of a Member State’ for the purposes of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case F-42/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Prieto v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Prieto v Parliament
   (Case F-42/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 340/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Prieto (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented, initially, by C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, and subsequently by K. Zejdová and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the 9 June 2006 appointing the applicant, at that time a member of the temporary staff in Grade AST 3 and a successful candidate in internal competition C/348 for career C5-4, a probationary official in Grade AST 2, step 3.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action of MrPrieto is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140 of 23.06.07, p. 47.


title: Case T-67/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Léopold Radauer against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 97/18                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.4.2002
The defendant misused its powers within the meaning of the                In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty. In carrying
out its procedure, it was not seeking to put an end to                    —     infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
infringements of the competition rules but to lower the charges                 Regulations;
for the conversion of foreign currencies.
                                                                          —     infringement of the general provisions for the implemen-
                                                                                tation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regula-
The amount of the fine was also such as to render it unlawful.                  tions;
The defendant did not correctly apply the relevant principles
for the calculation of fines.                                             —     infringement of the principles of equal treatment and
                                                                                non-discrimination.
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Peter Finch                         Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Léopold Radauer
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                against the Council of the European Union
                           (Case T-55/02)                                                          (Case T-67/02)
                           (2002/C 97/32)                                                          (2002/C 97/33)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Communities on 1 March 2002 by Léopold Radauer, residing
European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Peter Finch,                  in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,                   Levi, avocats.
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the defendant’s decision of 17 April 2001 fixing at
—     annul the Commission’s decision concerning the crediting                  3 years, 10 months and 10 days the number of years of
      of years of pensionable service under the Staff Regulations               pensionable service to be taken into account for the
      to be taken into account pursuant to Article 11(2) of                     applicant’s Community pension following the transfer of
      Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in consequence of the                 his pension rights acquired in Austria prior to his entry
      transfer to the Community pension scheme of the                           into the service of the European Communities and, in so
      pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry               far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated
      into service;                                                             15 November 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint
                                                                                of 17 July 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal
                                                                                basis and in a manner devoid of any illegality, the years
                                                                                of pensionable service to be taken into account for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 applicant’s Community pension following the transfer of
                                                                                his pension rights acquired in Austria;
The applicant, an official of the defendant institution who,
prior to his entry into service, had worked in France, Belgium            —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
and the Netherlands and acquired pension rights under
various pension schemes in those countries, is contesting the
calculation contained in the contested decision, which relates            Pleas in law and main arguments
to the crediting of all of the transferred rights. More specifically,
the applicant is contesting the fact that the appointing                  The single plea in law raised is the same as that in Case
authority took the date of his establishment as the reference             T-204/01 Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European
date and not the date of his entry into service.                          Union (OJ C 317, 10.11.2001, p. 32).


title: References for preliminary rulings by the Pretura di Roma by orders of that court of 17 December 1996 in the cases of Ministero delle Finanze v. 1. IN.CO.GE.'90 srl; 2. Idelgard srl; 3. IRIS '90 srl; 4. Camed srl; 5. PPA - Pomezia Progetti Appalti srl; 6. Edilcam srl; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini EC srl; 8. EMO srl; 9. Emoda srl; 10. Sappesi srl; 11. ING. Luigi Martini srl; 12. Giacomo srl and 13. Mafar srl (Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97)

text:
No C 94/6            1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    national court must not take account of those internal
comply fully with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July                provisions, even when classifying the legal relationship on
1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to                      the basis of which a national of a Member State calls on
mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of                 the finance administration to refund sums that were paid
shares concerning companies of different Member                          in contravention of the said Article 10 of Directive 69/
States ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its               335/EEC .
obligations under the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 12 ( 1 ) of the Directive, the Member States
were to comply with the provisions of the Directive not
later than 1 January 1992 and to inform the Commission
thereof. The Greek authorities acknowledge that they have                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
not yet adopted the necessary provisions by reason of                    Superior de Justicia de Catalunya by orders of that court
internal difficulties in the Greek legal system and the                  of 3 and 9 December 1996 in the cases of ( i ) Fuerzas
failure so far to adopt, at Community level, the Tenth                   Eléctricas de Catalunya SA (Fecsa) and (ii ) Autopistas
Directive on cross-border company mergers and the                        Concesionaria Española SA against Tribunal Económico
Regulation on the statute for a European company.                        Administrativo Regional de Catalunya and Departament
                                                                             d'Economia i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya
The Commission observes that those reasons cannot                                       ( Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97)
exempt the Hellenic Republic from its obligation to                                                   ( 97/C 94/ 13 )
implement the Directive .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJNoL225 , 20 . 8 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
                                                                         de Justicia de Catalunya ( High Court of Justice,
                                                                         Catalunya ) of 3 and 9 December 1996 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1997, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the cases of ( i ) ( Case C-31 /97)
                                                                         Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA ( Fecsa ) and ( ii ) ( Case
References for preliminary rulings by the Pretura di Roma                C-32/97) Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA against
by orders of that court of 17 December 1996 in the cases                 Tribunal Economico-Administrativo Regional de Catalun
of Ministero delle Finanze v. 1 . IN.CO.GE.'90 srl; 2 . Idel
                                                                         ya and Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Genera
gard srl; 3 . IRIS '90 srl; 4. Camed srl; 5 . PPA — Pomezia              litat de Catalunya on the following question:
Progetti Appalti srl; 6. Edilcam srl; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini
EC srl; 8 . EMO srl; 9. Emoda srl; 10. Sappesi srl; 11 .                 Having regard to Articles 11 ( b ) and 12 of Council
ING. Luigi Martini srl; 12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl              Directive 69/335/EEC ( 1 ) of 17 July 1969, is the purported
                  ( Cases C- 10/97 to C-22/97)                           levying by the Spanish Administration of the duty on
                          ( 97/C 94/12 )                                 transfers of assets and documented legal transactions on
                                                                         records of redemption ( repayment of loans ) in conformity
                                                                         with Community law, or on the contrary does it conflict
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   with Community law with the result that it must be
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    disallowed as being incompatible therewith ?
( Magistrate's Court, Rome ) of 17 December 1996 , which
were received at the Court Registry on 16 January 1997,                  (') OJ No L 249, 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 25 .
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Ministero delle Fi
nanze v. 1 . IN. CO . GE. ' 90 srl ; 2 . Idelgard srl ; 3 . IRIS ' 90
srl; 4 . Camed srl ; 5 . PPA — Pomezia Progetti Appalti srl;
6 . Edilcam srl ; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini EC srl; 8 . EMO srl ;
9 . Emoda srl; 10 . Sappesi srl; 11 . ING. Luigi Martini srl ;
12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl, on the following                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
question :                                                               van Koophandel by judgment of that court of 10 January
                                                                         1997 in the case of Colim NV against Bigg's Continent
Whether the imcompatibility with Article 10 of Council                                                  Noord NV
Directive 69/335/EEC (') of 17 July 1969 , as interpreted                                           ( Case C-33/97)
by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 April 1993
( in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponenti Carni and                                              ( 97/C 94/14 )
Cispadana Costruzione v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato [ 1993 ] ECR I, p. 1915 ), of Article 3 ( XVIII )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and (XIX ) of Decree Law No 853 of 19 December 1984,                     European Communities by a judgment of- the Rechtbank
converted into Law No 17 of 17 February 1985 , means,                    van Koophandel ( Commercial Court ) of 10 January 1997,
on the basis of the criteria for integration of national law             which was received at the Court Registry on 27 January
and Community law which that Court has laid down, that                    1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Colim NV
the said Article 3 ( XVIII ) and ( XIX ) must be set aside in            against Bigg's Continent Noord NV on the following
their entirety, and in particular whether it means that the              questions :


title: Case C-443/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws on animal health — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Annex I — Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs — Salmonella in fresh poultry meat — Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage — National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale — Compatibility with EU law — Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck
      (Case C-443/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws on animal health - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Annex I - Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs - Salmonella in fresh poultry meat - Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage - National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale - Compatibility with EU law - Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty)
      (2015/C 016/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability

         Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Annex II E. 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that fresh poultry meat from the animal populations listed in Annex I to that regulation, must satisfy the microbiological criterion mentioned in Annex I, Chapter I, Row l.28 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, at all the stages of distribution including the retail sale stage;

                  2.

                  EU law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety and Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing foodstuff on the market, on account of the failure to comply with the microbiological criterion laid down in Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalty at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.

         (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C–213/08: Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C–213/08) (1)

   2009/C 220/58

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-518/12: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Spirlea v Commission (Action for annulment  — Public health  — Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure  — Closure of the file on a complaint  — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations  — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/38

         Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission
   (Case T-518/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Public health - Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure - Closure of the file on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 135/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy); and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO, as referred to in the letter of 27 September 2012, sent to the applicants under reference SANCO/A2/AM/kva (2012) 1245353.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-1/08 INTP: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08 INTP) (1)

   ((Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment))
   (2016/C 016/32)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: J. Jurczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Jasser, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for interpretation of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 May 1996 in Case T-277/94: Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento (AITEC) v. Commission of the European Communities (Decision declaring State aid unlawful - Requests for initiation of Treaty infringement proceedings - Rejected - Action for annulment of measures - Decision - Inadmissible - Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissible)

text:
6 . 7. 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of the European Communities on 25 April 1996 by Partex,
                        of 22 May 1996                                Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA, whose registered
                                                                      office is in Lisbon, represented by Rui Chancerelle de
in     Case   T-277/94 :      Associazione   Italiana   Tecnico
                                                                      Machete, Pedro Machete e Miguel Pena Machete, of the
Economica del Cemento (AITEC ) v. Commission of the                   Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   European Communities i 1 )                         the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
(Decision declaring State aid unlawful — Requests for                 Rheinsheim .
initiation of Treatyinfringementproceedings — Rejected—
Action for annulment of measures — Decision —
Inadmissible — Action for declaration of failure to act —
                           Inadmissible)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          ( 96/C 197/40 )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      — declare the action to be admissible and, accordingly,
                                                                          annul the decision of the Commission approving the
In Case T-277/94 : Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica                final payment claim for the balance of file
del Cemento ( AITEC ), established in Rome, represented by                No 88 0412 P3 of the European Social Fund,
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, and Cesare Rizza,
of the Syracuse Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen,               — order the Commission to pay the costs.
15 côte d'Eich, v . Commission of the European
Communities ( agents : Nicola Annecchino and Ben
Smulders ) — application for annulment of decision
D/05268 of the Commission of 9 June 1994, inasmuch as it              Pleas in law and main arguments:
expresses the Commission's refusal to bring an action before
the Court of Justice under the second subparagraph of
Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty on account of the Greek                The applicant, a Portuguese service provider which
Government's failure to comply with Commission Decision               organized and put into operation in 1988 a vocational
91 /144/EEC of 2 May 1990 on aid granted by the Greek                 training programme intended for three undertakings,
Government to a cement manufacturer (Halkis Cement
                                                                      challenged the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
Company ) ( OJ L 73 , 1991 , p . 27 ) and, in addition,               the European Social Fund certain expenditure in connection
annulment of the confirmation of that refusal, expressed in           with that training programme (ESF file No 88 0412 P3 ) .
decision D/07743 of 26 July 1994 , together, in the
alternative, with a declaration that the Commission has
failed to act — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
Extended Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner,                     The applicant claims in the first place that Article 190 of the
President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A.                       Treaty was infringed since the contested decision does not
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio                    state any reasons which would enable the applicant to
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               understand the grounds for the refusal .
judgment on 22 May 1996 , in which it:
1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;                             The applicant complains, moreover, that the Commission,
                                                                      by adopting the contested decision, changed an initial
2 , orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the         decision which was favourable to the training projects in
      costs of the Commission.                                        question, and that it had certified the expenditure incurred
                                                                      by the DAFSE in 1988 . In particular, the defendant
f 1 ) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                   institution cannot reasonably ask for the repayment of the
                                                                      amounts at issue in respect of expenditure incurred in the
                                                                      context of a project approved and carried out eight years
                                                                      previously. By its conduct, the Commission breached,
                                                                      moreover, the applicable Community rules . Under Article 5
                                                                      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 , the factual and
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Partex, Companhia                  accounting verification must be carried out within a
Portuguesa de Serviços SA, against the Commission of the              time-limit of 13 months, as provided for in Decision
                    European Communities                               83/673/EEC . Since, according to settled case-law, this
                         ( Case T-58/96 )                             constitutes a time-bar, it is evident that there could have
                           ( 96/C 197/41 )                             been no valid reexamination in the present case .
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of first Instance


title: Election of Presidents of Chambers

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/2

         Election of Presidents of Chambers
   2010/C 317/03
   At a meeting on 5 October 2010, the Judges of the Court of Justice, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Kasel, Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Šváby and Sir Konrad Schiemann as Presidents of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers of three Judges respectively, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2011.


title: Case T-44/05: Action brought on 4 February 2005 by SP Entertainment Development GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/23

         Action brought on 4 February 2005 by SP Entertainment Development GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-44/05)
   (2005/C 115/44)
   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 4 February 2005 by SP Entertainment Development GmbH, Norderfriedrichskoog (Germany), represented by C. Demleitner, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision D/57536 of 20 October 2004;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the necessary costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission called upon Germany to reclaim a loan which was granted to a predecessor company of the applicant by an associated company of the City of Bremen. The applicant claims that this decision was based on the unfounded assumption of the Commission that the loan in question had not yet been repaid. According to the applicant, repayment had already been made by means of transfer of a stake in the company to which the loan was granted to the company which granted the loan. This repayment by means of ‘payment instead of performance’ does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC that is contrary to Community law since the value of the assigned stake amounts at least to the sum of the loan. Additionally, interest was paid up to 31 December 2003. From this date the applicant did not have to pay any interest since the transfer of the stake was delayed due to reasons for which the applicant was not responsible.