title: Case C-240/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others
   (Case C-240/15)
   (2015/C 302/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Respondents: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministry of Economy and Finance

      Question referred

   Do the impartiality, financial autonomy and organisational independence which national regulatory authorities must be granted under Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) and the substantial self-financing of such authorities referred to in Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) preclude national legislation (such as that relevant to the present proceedings) which additionally makes such authorities subject, in general, to legislation on public finance and, in particular, to specific provisions relating to containing and streamlining expenditure incurred by public administrative authorities?

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).


title: Case C-345/16: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legislative and factual background to the case in the main proceedings — Insufficient information — Manifestly inadmissible — Article 53(2) — Article 94 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/3

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State
   (Case C-345/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legislative and factual background to the case in the main proceedings - Insufficient information - Manifestly inadmissible - Article 53(2) - Article 94 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 086/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgique) (Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium) by decision of 9 June 2016 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case C-263/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd (Directive 85/337/EEC — Public participation in environmental decision-making procedures — Right of access to a review procedure to challenge decisions authorising projects likely to have significant effects on the environment)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd
   (Case C-263/08) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Public participation in environmental decision-making procedures - Right of access to a review procedure to challenge decisions authorising projects likely to have significant effects on the environment)
   2009/C 297/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening

      Defendant: Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 6(4) and 10a and of point 10 of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Local non-profit-making association which participated in the preliminary planning consent proceedings for a project which may have significant effects on the environment — National legislation making the right of non-profit-making associations to appeal against planning consent decisions for such projects subject to the conditions that an association’s purpose under its statutes is environmental protection, that it has been active for at least three years and that it has at least 2 000 members

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A project such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning abstraction of water leaking into a tunnel which houses electric cables and its recharging into the ground or rock in order to compensate for any reduction in the amount of groundwater, and the construction and maintenance of facilities for the abstraction and recharging, are covered by point 10(l) in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, irrespective of the ultimate destination of the groundwater and, in particular, of whether or not it is put to a subsequent use.

               2.

               Members of the ‘public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) and 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be able to have access to a review procedure to challenge the decision by which a body attached to a court of law of a Member State has given a ruling on a request for development consent, regardless of the role they might have played in the examination of that request by taking part in the procedure before that body and by expressing their views.

               3.

               Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, precludes a provision of national law which reserves the right to bring an appeal against a decision on projects which fall within the scope of that directive, as amended, solely to environmental protection associations which have at least 2 000 members.

      (1)  OJ C 209,15.08.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 January 1998 in Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Partial permanent invalidity - Accident - Link between cause and effect)

text:
C 94/20               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 29 January 1998                                                 of 29 January 1998
                                                                   in Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte v. Commission of the
in Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &
                                                                                European Communities (1)
 Export Corporation v. Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Partial permanent invalidity Ð Accident Ð
(Anti-dumping Ð Furfuraldehyde Ð Factors justifying the                           Link between cause and effect)
opening of an investigation Ð Principle of proportionality
Ð Injury Ð Rejection of an undertaking Ð Regulation                                        (98/C 94/52)
                     (EEC) No 2423/88)
                         (98/C 94/51)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte, an official of the
               (Language of the case: English)                     Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Halle (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
                                                                   Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &              (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the
Export Corporation established in Beijing, represented by          decision of the Commission of 16 June 1995 refusing to
Jean-FrancËois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        accept, in accordance with the rules on insurance against
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and            the risk of accident, financial responsibility for the
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union             consequences of an infarction suffered by the applicant
(Agents: initially Yves Cretien and Antonio Tanca,                 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the
subsequently Mr Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.               decision of 25 January 1996 expressly rejecting the
Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European                 applicant's complaint Ð the Court of First Instance
Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural                    (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
EspanÄol SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain),                  President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; A.
represented by JoseÂ Rivas de AndreÂs, of the Madrid Bar,          Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde
Ð for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 95/
95 of 16 January 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping           1. dismisses the application;
duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the
People's Republic of China (OJ L 15, 21.1.1995, p. 11) Ð
the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                   2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the
Chamber, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Registrar, gave a judgment on             (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
29 January 1998 in which it:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 22 January 1998
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                   in Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
    the costs of the Council and of the intervener Furfural
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    EspanÄol;
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision reassigning an official Ð Article 7
                                                                   of the Staff Regulations Ð Annex X to the Staff
                                                                                Regulations)
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                            (98/C 94/53)
(1) OJ C 159, 24.6.1995.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case C-517/14 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-112/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/15

         Appeal brought on 17 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-112/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission
   (Case C-517/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] (1);

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the appellant in the direct action and in the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First ground of appeal: The General Court considers the appellant to have no legal interest in bringing proceedings, since the regulation at issue contains a clarification to the effect that ‘Edam’ is generic. The relevant wording in the registration regulation is, however, merely tautological. The annulment of the registration regulation would therefore, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, give the members an advantage that would justify a legal interest in bringing proceedings. For that reason, the action is admissible. It is also, for the same reason, well founded, as the clarification was authorised by the Netherlands applicants. The Commission therefore erred in nevertheless failing to provide that clarification.

      Second ground of appeal: The appellant stated that its members had, in the past, supplied milk to the Netherlands, which could be, and probably was, processed there into Gouda or Edam. The General Court did not infer from this that there was any legal interest in bringing proceedings. In fact, that submission was factually incorrect. The General Court thus distorted the facts of the case, as the submission is correct. Furthermore, according to the General Court, the appellant had not raised its objection or brought its action on behalf of ‘milk producers’. This too is a distortion of the facts, since the objection was made on behalf of the appellant’s members, in so far as they process milk (the milk sold into the Netherlands being processed milk) and market milk or cheese.

      Third ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the dismissal of the objection does not establish a legal interest in bringing proceedings on the part of the appellant itself. This is because the objection was, in legal terms, not made by the appellant but by the Federal Republic of Germany. This does not correspond to the legal position under basic Regulation No 510/2006 (2), nor, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, has that question yet been determined with regard to the basic Regulation. There are differences between basic Regulation No 510/2006 and its predecessor, Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3) , which the General Court failed to take into account and which mean that certainly under the basic regulation, objectors such as the appellant assert their own right to object.

      Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court rejects the appellant’s submission that the EU’s blue PGI label gives Netherlands producers a competitive advantage over the appellant’s members. This is not correct. The competitive advantage exists, and establishes a legal interest on the part of the appellant’s members in bringing proceedings to have the registration regulation annulled.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 317, p. 14.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari v. European Parliament (Officials - Sick leave - Medical certificate - Medical examination to verify - Conclusions contradicting the medical certificate)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/29
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 4 October                    annual leave — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
1995 rejecting the requests made by the applicants,                     Chamber), composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, acting as
following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined                President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Cases C-89/85 , C-104/85 , C-l 14/85 , C-l 16/85 , C-l 17/85            A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
and C-125/85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and                        judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:
Others v. Commission [ 1993 ] ECR 1-1307, for repayment
of the fines imposed on them by Commission Decision 85/                 1 . annuls the decision of the Parliament of 22 May, in
202/EEC of 19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding                          which it considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood                          1 995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her
pulp ) ( OJ No L 85 , 26 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court of                   annual leave, and the decision of 9 August 1995
First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ),                      confirming that decision;
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:                                  2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, contained in the
      letter of 4 October 1995, rejecting the applicant's
      request that it review, in the light of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases C-89/85,
      C-104/85, C-l 14/85, C-l 16/85, C-117/85 and C-125/
      85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v.
      Commission [1993] ECR 1-1307, the legality of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of 19 December                                              of 10 July 1997
      1984, relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the
                                                                        in Case T-38/96: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
      EEC Treaty (IV/29. 725 — Wood pulp) in so far as the
      latter relates to them;                                                             the European Communities H
                                                                         (Competition — Action for failure to act — No need for a
2 . dismisses the action as inadmisible in so far as it seeks                   ruling — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)
      the issue of directions to the Commission;                                                   ( 97/C 252/64 )
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                              (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                          In Case T-38/96 : Guérin Automobiles, with its registered
                                                                         office at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                         Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar and of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon, against
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         initially Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Charrier, subsequently Giuliano Marenco and Guy
                           of 10 July 1997                               Charrier) — application for ( i ) a declaration that the
                                                                         Commission failed to act, by not addressing a statement of
         in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari v. European                   objections to Nissan France and ( ii ) compensation for the
                            Parliament (')
                                                                         damage caused to the applicant by that failure to act —
 (Officials — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Medical                 the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
 examination to verify — Conclusions contradicting the                   Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President,
                         medical certificate)                            C. P. Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                            ( 97/C 252/63 )                               10 July 1997, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1 . declares that there is no need to rule on the action for
                                                                               failure to act;
 In Case T-36/96 : Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the
 European         Parliament,       residing    at      Sandweiler       2 . dismisses      the remainder of the application as
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                       inadmissible;
 Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the
                                                                          3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs and half
                                                                               of the applicant's costs.
  European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
  Caiola ) — application for the annulment of the decisions
  of 22 May 1995 and 9 August 1995 , whereby the                          H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
  Parliament considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
  1995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her


title: Case C-502/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Jens Schombera v Land Berlin

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Jens Schombera v Land Berlin
   (Case C-502/12)
   2013/C 26/54
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jens Schombera

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

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


title: Case F-145/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/36

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-145/12)
      (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)
      (2014/C 71/71)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for the revalorisation of his invalidity pension.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio id ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-148/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International B.V.

text:
C 146/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
4.    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective      1.     Must Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
      judicial protection.                                                    of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                              schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                              and to members of their families moving within the
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                               Community (1) be interpreted as applying only where a
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.                                                 migrant worker is entitled to family benefits under the
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.                                                 legislation of the State of employment and under the
                                                                              legislation of the State in which the members of his
                                                                              family are resident?
                                                                       2.     If so, may the bodies of the State of employment suspend
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                       entitlement to family benefits where they consider that a
richt München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of                         refusal to grant family benefits in the State of residence is
that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger                         incompatible with Community law?
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Trans-
                     port International B.V.
                                                                       3.     If not, does Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 permit
                          (Case C-148/03)                                     the State of employment to apply the rule against
                                                                              aggregation of benefits where, under the law of the State
                          (2003/C 146/46)                                     of residence of the family members, the worker’s spouse
                                                                              receives or is entitled to similar family benefits?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — (Munich Higher
Regional Court, Civil Chambers in Augsburg) of 27 March                (1 ) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/
                                                                            83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6).
2003, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International
B.V. on the following question:
Do the provisions on jurisdiction contained in other conven-
tions take precedence over the general provisions on jurisdic-
tion in the Brussels Convention even where a defendant
domiciled in the territory of a State which is a party to the
Brussels Convention and against whom an action has been
brought before a court of another State which is a party to
that Convention fails to submit pleas as to the merits of the
case in the proceedings before that court?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judg-
ment of that Court of 6 March 2003 in the case of                                                (Case C-154/03)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales against Ursula
                    SCHWARZ, née WEIDE
                          (Case C-153/03)                                                        (2003/C 146/48)
                          (2003/C 146/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
(Court of Cassation) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of               An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
6 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2003,          Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale des           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Prestations Familiales against Ursula SCHWARZ, née WEIDE               Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
on the following questions:                                            Luxembourg.


title: Case T-47/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Duration of the infringements — Limitation period — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Rights of the defence — Attribution of the infringements — Infringements committed by the subsidiaries, by a partnership without legal personality of its own and by a subsidiary — Calculation of the amount of the fines)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-47/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Duration of the infringements - Limitation period - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - Attribution of the infringements - Infringements committed by the subsidiaries, by a partnership without legal personality of its own and by a subsidiary - Calculation of the amount of the fines))
   (2015/C 302/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH (Düren, Germany); Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands); and Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Swaak and M. van der Woude, and subsequently by Mr Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, and subsequently by Mr Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fines imposed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2, points 4, 6, 21 and 23, of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in respect of the fines imposed on Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and on Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV;

               2.

               Reduces the total amount of fines imposed in Article 2, points 1 to 7, and 18 to 24, of Decision C(2009) 8682 final to EUR 40  194 million for Akzo Nobel NV and EUR 1 1 8 81  980 for Akcros Chemicals Ltd;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear two fifths of the costs of Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akcros Chemicals and to pay three fifths of its own costs. Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akcros Chemicals, shall bear three fifths of their own costs and two fifths of the Commission’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case F-135/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — Beiner v Commission (Civil service — Competition — Eligibility conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — Beiner v Commission
   (Case F-135/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Competition - Eligibility conditions - Professional experience - Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 191/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laurent Beiner (Knutange, France) (represented by: B. Sahki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AST/130/14 not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage, on the ground that he did not have the required level of studies and professional experience of a minimum of six years related to the nature of the work.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Mr Laurent Beiner shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11/01/2016, p. 37.


title: Case T-154/06: Action brought on  5 June 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/38

         Action brought on 5 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-154/06)
   (2006/C 178/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2006)1171 of 23 March 2006 concerning a reduction in assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted by Decision C(95) 2194 of 28 September 1995, subsequently amended by Decision C(2000) 2862 of 26 January 2001, for an operational programme in the Region of Sicily forming part of the Community support framework for structural assistance under Objective 1 in Italy for the period 1994 to 1999. In that decision, the defendant decided to reduce the financing of that programme by approximately EUR 115 million because the national authorities had failed to provide adequate clarification on certain aspects of their request for final payment.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits:

               —

               Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, (1) on the basis that the Commission did not reduce the funding following a ‘suitable examination of the case’, as required under that provision. It merely adopted the conclusions of an internal control body in the Sicilian regional administration, which had raised doubts as to whether certain projects were being properly managed.

               —

               Infringement of the same provision of the abovementioned regulation in that the defendant based its decision merely on the fact that the national authorities did not deal with its requests for observations in detail and did not ascertain whether there were in fact any actual irregularities.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 23 and 24 of the abovementioned Regulation No 4253/88 and Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds. (2) The applicant submits that, in essence, the Commission adopted the conclusions set out by the national internal control body in the statement required under Article 8 of Regulation No 2064/97, even though that statement was merely an indicatory summary. The Commission should, instead, have carried out its own independent inquiries.

               —

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that, firstly, the defendant did not allow the national authorities sufficient time to carry out an adequate examination of the documentation and, secondly, the contested decision was based on only some of the documents produced by the national authorities in the course of that procedure and disregarded the most relevant of those documents.

      (1)  OJ L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 1.


title: Case T-361/11: Action brought on 6 July 2011 — Hand Held Products v OHIM — Orange Brand Services (DOLPHIN)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/53

         Action brought on 6 July 2011 — Hand Held Products v OHIM — Orange Brand Services (DOLPHIN)
   (Case T-361/11)
   2011/C 269/117
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hand Held Products, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orange Brand Services Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1443/2010-1, and reject CTM application No 5046231; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DOLPHIN’, for inter alia goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 5046231

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 936229 of the word mark ‘DOLPHIN’, for goods in class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to make a global analysis of the relevant factors but merely rejected the opposition on the basis that the goods are different, establishing minimal differences between them, and without giving the adequate weight in the comparative analysis to the identity in the signs ‘DOLPHIN’.


title: Case T-533/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid planned by Spain for RTVE — Alteration of the funding scheme — Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators — Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market — Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed — Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid — Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid — Proportionality)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission
   (Case T-533/10) (1)

   ((State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid planned by Spain for RTVE - Alteration of the funding scheme - Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators - Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market - Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed - Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid - Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid - Proportionality))
   2014/C 292/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica Móviles España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and N. Díaz Abad, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad, and lastly by M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado); and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE) (Madrid) (represented by: A. Martínez Sánchez and J. Rodríguez Ordóñez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures, the costs of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE), including those relating to the application for interim measures, and the costs of the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures, excluding the costs incurred by the latter due to the intervention of Telefónica de España, SA and Telefónica Móviles España, SA.

               3.

               Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España shall bear their own costs and pay, jointly, the costs incurred by the Commission due to their intervention.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-537/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA (Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Entitlements acquired or being acquired at the start of the leave — Continued receipt of social security benefits during the leave — Directive 79/7/EEC — Principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Acquisition of entitlements to permanent invalidity pension acquired during parental leave)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA
   (Case C-537/07) (1)

   (Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Entitlements acquired or being acquired at the start of the leave - Continued receipt of social security benefits during the leave - Directive 79/7/EEC - Principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Acquisition of entitlements to permanent invalidity pension acquired during parental leave)
   2009/C 220/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Alcampo SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain) — Interpretation of Clause 2(6) and (8) of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Directive 96/34 of 3 June on (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) and of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — Domestic legislation providing for the amount of invalidity pension to be calculated in relation to the salary received during a certain period before the occurrence of the event giving rise to the pension — Part-time parental leave during that period — Effects.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 2(6) of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC can be relied on by individuals before a national court;

               2.

               Clause 2(6) and (8) of the framework agreement on parental leave does not preclude the taking into account, in the calculation of an employee’s permanent invalidity pension, of the fact that he has taken a period of part-time parental leave during which he made contributions and acquired pension entitlements in proportion to the salary received;

               3.

               Clause 2(8) of the framework agreement on parental leave does not impose obligations on the Member States, apart from that of examining and determining social security questions related to that framework agreement in accordance with national legislation. In particular, it does not require them to ensure that during parental leave employees continue to receive social security benefits. Clause 2(8) thereof cannot be relied on by individuals before a national court against public authorities;

               4.

               The principle of equal treatment for men and women and, in particular, the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, within the meaning of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, does not preclude an employee, during part-time parental leave, from acquiring entitlements to a permanent invalidity pension according to the time worked and the salary received and not as if he had worked on a full-time basis.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 1999 in Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Payment of the fine - Bank guarantee - Procedure for interim measures - Suspension of enforcement)

text:
C 246/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
1. Operation of the decision of 27 October 1998, imposing on the          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
    applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without                                  INSTANCE
    reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension,
    is suspended pending delivery of final judgment in the case by the                            of 21 June 1999
    Court of First Instance;
                                                                          in Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA v Commission of the
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                     European Communities
                                                                          (Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                          Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
                                                                                ment)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA, established in Monrovia,
                                                                          represented by Dimitrios Papatheofanous, lawyer with right of
                         of 9 March 1999                                  audience before the Arios Pagos, Athens, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas, Route de
                                                                          Trèves, Findel, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission                     (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — application
               of the European Communities (1)                            for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision
                                                                          1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
                                                                          pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek
                    (Manifest inadmissibility)                            Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), Article 2 of which fined the
                                                                          applicant ECU 0.26 million for breach of Article 81 EC
                                                                          (formerly Article 85 of the EC Treaty) — the President of the
                          (1999/C 246/65)                                 Court of First Instance made an order on 21 June 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2. Costs are reserved.
In Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),
Jean-Marie Bissieres, residing at La Croix Blanche (France), SA
Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma, established at Penne
D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at Canet
(France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities — application for an order of the Court allowing                                         INSTANCE
a rebate application lodged by the first applicant with the
French customs authorities on 20 December 1998 in relation                                         of 1 June 1999
to certain imports of mushrooms originating in Poland — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Com-
Registrar, made an order on 9 March 1999, the operative part                         mission of the European Communities
of which is as follows:
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — Urgency — None)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (1999/C 246/67)
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                 In Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
                                                                          Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
                                                                          of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at Mr Colussi’s
                                                                          chambers, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for,


title: Case T-614/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Romonta v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Transitional rules concerning the free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementing measures submitted by Germany — Hardship clause — Freedom to choose an occupation and to conduct a business — Property rights — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Romonta v Commission
      (Case T-614/13) (1)

      ((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances - Transitional rules concerning the free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementing measures submitted by Germany - Hardship clause - Freedom to choose an occupation and to conduct a business - Property rights - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Romonta GmbH (Seegebiet Mansfelder Land, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M.-Y. Vollmer, C. Telschow and A. Schulze, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as Article 1(1) of that decision refuses to grant the applicant the supplementary quotas requested for the third trading period of the 2013 to 2020 emissions trading on the basis of the hardship clause under Paragraph 9(5) of the Treibhausgas-Emissionshandelsgesetz (German Law on greenhouse gas emissions trading) of 21 July 2011.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Romonta GmbH to pay the costs of the main proceedings and the interim proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-197/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Thomas Neufeldt and Others v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Thomas Neufeldt and Others v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-197/17)
   (2017/C 231/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Thomas Neufeldt, Julia Neufeldt and Gabriel Neufeldt, both represented by their parents, Sandra Neufeldt and Thomas Neufeldt

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-544/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB
   (Case C-544/13)
   2014/C 15/08
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abcur AB

      Defendant: Apoteket Farmaci AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is used only in emergency health care, for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) and which is prepared by an operator such as that involved in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) and ordered by health care institutions on the conditions material to the case before the Stockholms tingsrätt, be covered by any of the exceptions in Article 3(1) or (2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular in a situation where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, same dosage and same pharmaceutical form?

               2.

               If a prescription-only medicinal product for human use such as that referred to in question 1 is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by Directive 2006/114 (3) concerning misleading and comparative advertising?

               3.

               If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with question 2, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use of a product name, product number and AnatomicTherapeuticChemical code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product, supply of the medicinal product via an electronic ordering service for health services and the supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national professional organisation) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

      (3)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Case C-304/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria): Hera SpA v. Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 - Genovese (USL) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA (Directive 93/37/EEC - Public procurement - Abnormally low tenders)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the .European Communities                                     C 357/ 11
     only that it recognizes the rights of doctors established            The anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to Article 1 of
     in practice there, under Council Directive 75/362/EEC                Commission Decision No 2131 /88/ECSC of 18 July 1988
     of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of                 — imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in
     qualifications in medicine, including measures to                    Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti
     facilitate the effective exercise of the right of                    dumping duty imposed on those imports — on imports of
     establishment and freedom to provide services, before                certain steel products 'originating in Yugoslavia ' also
     1 January 1995 to practise general medicine under its                apply to products of that kind manufactured by a
     national social security scheme, even if they have no                producer/exporter who had been established in the
     specific training in general medical practice and have               Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but was in fact
     not established a service relationship with that State 's            — by reason of the Former Yugoslav Republic of
     social security scheme.                                              Macedonia 's declaration of independence — situated in
                                                                          the FYROM at the time when the products in question
                                                                          were imported.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                          (>) OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 16 October 1997                                                         (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 1997
in Case C- 177/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen): Belgian                    in Case C-304/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
State v. Banque Indosuez and Others and European                          the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria):
                             Community (')                                Hera SpA v. Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 — Genovese
                                                                                ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA (*)
(Dumping — Sheets or plates, of iron or steel, originating
in Yugoslavia — Declaration of independence of the                        (Directive     93/37/EEC — Public procurement                —
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — Legal                                                  Abnormally low tenders)
                                certainty)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/20 )
                             ( 97/C 357/ 19 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-304/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
In Case C- 177/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177              Regionale ( Regional Administrative Court), Liguria ( Italy ),
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg                     for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp ( Belgium ), for a                   that court between Hera SpA and Unita Sanitaria Locale
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 No 3 — Genovese ( USL ) and Impresa Romagnoli SpA —
court between Belgian State and Banque Indosuez and                       on the interpretation of Article 30 (4 ) of Council Directive
Others and European Community — on the interpretation                     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
of Commission Decision No 2131/88/ECSC of 18 July                         of procedures for the award of public works contracts ( OJ
1988 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports                   L 199, 9 . 8 . 1983 , p. 54 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
of certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in            composed of: H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), President of
Yugoslavia and definitively collecting the provisional anti              the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges;
dumping duty imposed on those imports ( OJ L 188 , 19 . 7.                C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 , p. 14 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                          ruled :
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and G.
Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 1997, in                    Article 30 (4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
which it has ruled :                                                      1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 11 . 97
award of public works contracts must be interpreted as                  1 . The appeal is dismissed.
precluding contracting authorities from rejecting
abnormally low tenders after 31 December 1992 without
following the verification procedure provided for in the                2 . The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
first subparagraph of that provision.
                                                                        (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
(') OJ C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 15 September 1997 by Smanor SA,
                                                                        Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the order
                                                                        made on 3 July 1997 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                        T-201/96 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                           ( First Chamber)                             Ségaud and Monique Ségaud and, on the other,
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                         of 6 October 1997                                                         ( Case C-3 17/97 P )
in Case C-55 /97 P: Association Internationale des Utilisa                                            ( 97/C 357/22 )
teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de
Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), a company                  An appeal against the order made on 3 July 1997 by the
under English law, against Commission of the European                   Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                   European Communities in Case T-201/96 between, on the
                Britain and Northern Ireland (')                        one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique
                                                                        Ségaud and, on the other, Commission of the European
 (Appeal — Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) of the EC Treaty —                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
 Textiles — Manifest error of assessment — Overcapacity                 the European Communities on 15 September 1997 by
                          — Admissibility)                              Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud,
                                                                        represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,
                             ( 97/C 357/21 )                            with an address for service at 7/9 Rue du General de
                                                                        Larminat, Créteil .
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
                                                                        order appealed against and, ruling afresh, grant the
                                                                        applications originally made and order the Commission to
                                                                        pay all the costs.
 In Case C-55/97 P, Association Internationale des Utilisa
 teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
 established in Gent ( Belgium ), Apparel , Knitting &
 Textiles Alliance ( AKT), a company under English law,                  Failure to comply with secondary Community law: in the
 established in London, represented by Michel Waelbroeck,               circumstances of the case, faced with a failure to act as
 Jules Stuyck and Olivier Spletdoorn, of the Brussels Bar,               persistent in duration as inexplicable in motivation,
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        directly giving rise to a spiralling increase in the damage
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt —                     suffered, the Court of First Instance could not, without
 appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance              failing in its duty to take all the relevant aspects of the
 of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber, Extended                   case into consideration, acknowledge that the Commission
 Composition ) in Case T-380/94 AIUFFASS and AKT v.                      enjoyed the discretion recognized in Case C-247/8 7 Star
 Commission [ 1996 ] ECR 11-2169, seeking the annulment                  Fruit v. Commission ('), which is totally irrelevant in
 of that judgment, the other party to the proceedings being :            this case because it referred to factual circumstances
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                  completely unrelated to the legal consequences entailed by
 Lewis ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain                   the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 298/87
 and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted                  Smanor ( 2 ).
 by Richard Plender and Stephen Morris ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of L. Sevón, President of                   (') [ 1989 ] ECR, p . 291 .
 the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                            ( 2 ) [ 1988 ] ECR, p . 4489 .
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 6 October 1997, the
 operative part of which is as follows :


               10.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/4

         Action brought on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-12/13)
   2013/C 294/04
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to implement correctly Article 1, paragraphs 15-18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23-29, 36-37, 39-42 and Article 2, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act referred to at points 14, 16e and 31 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements and crisis management), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, and by failing to inform the Authority of the text of such measures, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 12 November 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 September 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 1, paragraphs 15-18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23-29, 36-37, 39-42 and Article 2, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act referred to at points 14, 16e and 31 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements and crisis management).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fully implement the Act within the time limit prescribed and to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority accordingly.


title: Case F-135/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Smadja v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Classification by step — New appointment of the applicant to the same post after his first appointment was annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance — Principle of proportionality — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Smadja v Commission
   (Case F-135/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Classification by step - New appointment of the applicant to the same post after his first appointment was annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance - Principle of proportionality - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials)
   (2008/C 313/106)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniele Smadja (New Delhi, India) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission decision appointing the applicant, an official placed initially in Grade A*15, step 4, inasmuch as it places her in grade A*15, step 1 following her re-appointment to the post of Director of Directorate B of RELEX after the annulment of her first appointment, and, second, a claim for non-material and material loss
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 21 December 2006, placing Ms Smadja in grade A*15, step 1, with seniority in step as at 1 November 2005;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 35.


title: Case C-263/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Definition of ‘taxable person for the purposes of value added tax’ and ‘economic activity’ — Article 24(1) — Definition of ‘supply of services’ — Agricultural engineering works — Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company — Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
   (Case C-263/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Definition of ‘taxable person for the purposes of value added tax’ and ‘economic activity’ - Article 24(1) - Definition of ‘supply of services’ - Agricultural engineering works - Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company - Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid))
   (2016/C 287/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by a non-profit company which engages in such commercial activities only on an ancillary basis, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that those works have in large part been financed by State aid and that their operation gives rise only to revenue from modest fees, provided that that fee can be regarded as having a ‘continuing basis’ on account of the period of time during which it is to be charged.

               2.

               Article 24 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a supply of services for consideration, on the ground that the services rendered are directly linked to the fee received or to be received, provided that that modest fee constitutes remuneration for the service supplied and notwithstanding the fact that performance of those services is a legal obligation. It is for the referring court to determine whether the amount of the fee received or to be received, qua consideration, means that there exists a direct link between the services supplied or to be supplied and that consideration, and consequently allows those services to be classified as being effected for consideration. In particular, the referring court will have to ascertain that the fee which the applicants in the main proceedings are planning to charge does not only partly remunerate the services supplied or to be supplied and that its amount has not been determined as a result of other possible factors that could, depending on the circumstances, call into question the direct link between the services supplied and the consideration.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-48/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mega Brands Inc. (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark — Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark — Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick — Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mega Brands Inc.
   (Case C-48/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark - Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick - Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result)
   2010/C 301/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lego Juris A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Mega Brands Inc. (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, advocaten).

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in which that Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a Lego brick for goods in Classes 9 and 28 against Decision R 856/2004-G of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 July 2006 which had dismissed the appeal brought against the Cancellation Division’s decision declaring that mark partially invalid in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Mega Brands — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-159/09 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2009 — Biofrescos v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Submission of the application — Inadmissibility — Financial loss — Lack of urgency)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/12

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2009 — Biofrescos v Commission
   (Case T-159/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Submission of the application - Inadmissibility - Financial loss - Lack of urgency)
   2009/C 167/25
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares, Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães Menezes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the recovery of import duties not yet demanded of the applicant, in so far as that recovery was ordered by Commission Decision C (2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009, finding that it is justified to proceed to recovery a posteriori of those duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in the applicant’s case.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.