title: Case C-449/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Consumer credit — Directive 2008/48/EC — Pre-contractual information duties — Obligation to check the borrower’s creditworthiness — Burden of proof — Methods of proof)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato
   (Case C-449/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Directive 2008/48/EC - Pre-contractual information duties - Obligation to check the borrower’s creditworthiness - Burden of proof - Methods of proof))
   (2015/C 065/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CA Consumer Finance

      Defendants: Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato

      Operative part of the judgment

               (1)

               The provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted to the effect that:

                           —

                           first, they preclude national rules according to which the burden of proving the non-performance of the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 8 of Directive 2008/48 lies with the consumer; and

                           —

                           secondly, they preclude a court from having to find that, as a result of a standard term, a consumer has acknowledged that the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations have been fully and correctly performed, with that term thereby resulting in a reversal of the burden of proving the performance of those obligations such as to undermine the effectiveness of the rights conferred by Directive 2008/48.

               (2)

               Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted to the effect that, first, it does not preclude the consumer’s creditworthiness assessment from being carried out solely on the basis of information supplied by the consumer, provided that that information is sufficient and that mere declarations by the consumer are also accompanied by supporting evidence and, secondly, that it does not require the creditor to carry out systematic checks of the veracity of the information supplied by the consumer.

               (3)

               Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted to the effect that, although it does not preclude a creditor from providing the consumer with adequate explanations before assessing the financial situation and the needs of that consumer, it may be that the assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness means that the adequate explanations provided need to be adapted, and that those explanations must be communicated to the consumer in good time before the credit agreement is signed, without this, however, requiring a specific document to be drawn up.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-160/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public service contracts — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public emergency services — Emergency ambulance and qualified patient transport services — Obligation of transparency — Article 45 EC — Activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Article 86(2) EC — Services of general economic interest)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/4

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-160/08) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public service contracts - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public emergency services - Emergency ambulance and qualified patient transport services - Obligation of transparency - Article 45 EC - Activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Article 86(2) EC - Services of general economic interest)
      (2010/C 161/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and D. Kukovec, Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Practice of local authorities of awarding directly, without open procedures for the award of public contracts and in breach of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, contracts and concessions for the supply of public ambulance services.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to publish notices of the results of the procedure for the award of contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 16 thereof or, since 1 February 2006, under Article 22 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in conjunction with Article 35(4) thereof in relation to the award in accordance with the tender model of contracts for public emergency ambulance and qualified patient transport services in the Länder of Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony and Saxony;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-29/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2006/112/EC — Repeal of the First VAT Directive — Partial annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council
   (Case T-29/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2006/112/EC - Repeal of the First VAT Directive - Partial annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 171/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lactalis Gestion Lait SNC and Lactalis Investissements SNC (Laval, France) (represented by: A. Philippart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert and M. Iosifidou, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) to the extent that it repeals the fourth and eighth recitals in the preamble to and the first and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes of 11 April 1967 (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain.

               3.

               Lactalis Gestion Lait SNC and Lactalis Investissements SNC are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-337/15: Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/78

         Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)
   (Case T-337/15)
   (2015/C 294/93)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RESCUE’ — Community trade mark registration No 6 473 755

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2551/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-7/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Nadežda Riežniece v Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests (Social policy — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on Parental Leave — Abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties — Assessment of a female worker who took parental leave as compared to workers who remained in active service — Dismissal at the end of parental leave — Indirect discrimination)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Nadežda Riežniece v Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests
   (Case C-7/12) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework Agreement on Parental Leave - Abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties - Assessment of a female worker who took parental leave as compared to workers who remained in active service - Dismissal at the end of parental leave - Indirect discrimination)
   2013/C 225/38
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nadežda Riežniece

      Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Zemkopības ministrija, Lauku atbalsta dienests

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Dismissal of a female employee on parental leave on her return to her previous post — Measures taken with a view to optimising the number of civil servants due to national economic difficulties — Assessment of the merits of a female employee on parental leave, which takes into account her latest annual performance appraisal before that leave, compared to the assessment of other civil servants who have continued in active employment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, where a much higher number of women than men take parental leave, which it is for the national court to verify, and the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, concluded on 14 December 1995, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding:

               —

               a situation where, as part of an assessment of workers in the context of abolishment of officials’ posts due to national economic difficulties, a worker who has taken parental leave is assessed in his or her absence on the basis of assessment principles and criteria which place him or her in a less favourable position as compared to workers who did not take parental leave; in order to ascertain whether or not that is the case, the national court must inter alia ensure that the assessment encompasses all workers liable to be concerned by the abolishment of the post, that it is based on criteria which are absolutely identical to those applying to workers in active service and that the implementation of those criteria does not involve the physical presence of workers on parental leave; and

               —

               a situation where a female worker who has been transferred to another post at the end of her parental leave following that assessment is dismissed due to the abolishment of that new post, where it was not impossible for the employer to allow her to return to her former post or where the work assigned to her was not equivalent or similar and consistent with her employment contract or employment relationship, inter alia because, at the time of the transfer, the employer was informed that the new post was due to be abolished, which it is for the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-361/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Pachtitis (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Non-admission to participation in the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests — Division of powers between EPSO and the competition selection board)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Pachtitis
   (Case T-361/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission to participation in the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests - Division of powers between EPSO and the competition selection board)
   2012/C 32/46
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, and by E. Antypas and E. Bourtzalas, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission, and for that judgment to be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Dimitrios Pachtitis in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-775/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — EK/servicegroup v OHIM (FERLI)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/32

         Action brought on 29 December 2015 — EK/servicegroup v OHIM (FERLI)
   (Case T-775/15)
   (2016/C 078/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: EK/servicegroup eG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller und T. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FERLI’ — Application for Registration No 13 850 235

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2015 in Case R 1233/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 28 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 9(4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-127/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Andrejs Surmačs v Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
   (Case C-127/14)
   2014/C 159/20
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

      Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must part 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes be interpreted as meaning that the list set out there of persons who must be regarded as linked to the credit institution in question, and who must be refused the right to guaranteed compensation, is exhaustive?

               2.

               May a person who, according to the description of his position, has the power to plan, coordinate and supervise a branch of the credit institution’s activity or the execution of a function, but not the credit institution’s activity in its entirety, and who is not entitled to give orders or make binding decisions on behalf of other persons be regarded as a manager of a credit institution or as any other of the persons mentioned in part 7 of Annex I to the Directive? Must the nature of that branch of the credit institution’s activity or of that function be taken into account?

               3.

               Must part 7 of Annex I of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse payment of the guaranteed compensation to a person who, having regard to the rights and obligations set out in the description of his position, cannot be regarded as a director but who has de facto a considerable influence over the credit institution’s directors or the persons personally responsible for that institution? Can merely informal influence, deriving from the authority, skills or knowledge of the person in relation to the credit institution’s activity, be relevant in that context?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 135, p. 1.


title: Case C-6/08 P: Order of the Court of 19 June 2008 — US Steel Košice s.r.o. v Commission (Appeal — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Slovak Republic — Act of Accession — Allocation of allowances — Period 2008-2012 — Conditions — Whether directly affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/13

         Order of the Court of 19 June 2008 — US Steel Košice s.r.o. v Commission
   (Case C-6/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Slovak Republic - Act of Accession - Allocation of allowances - Period 2008-2012 - Conditions - Whether directly affected - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 285/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: US Steel Košice s.r.o. (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor, and E. Vermulst, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07 US Steel Košice s r.o. v Commission of the European Communities dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Slovakia for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Natural or legal persons — Acts of direct and individual concern to them — Direct concern — Criteria
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-411/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/18

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
      (Case T-411/16)
      (2016/C 364/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection, provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment which the Council committed with regard to the applicant’s involvement in the financing of the Syrian regime.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular its right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and its right to respect for its good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).


title: Case T-70/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014 — UAB MELT WATER v OHIM (Form of a bottle)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/49

         Action brought on 27 January 2014 — UAB MELT WATER v OHIM (Form of a bottle)

   (Case T-70/14)
   2014/C 112/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2013 in Case R 481/2013-5 and order OHIM to register, as a Community trade mark, the mark consisting of the form of a bottle in respect of which the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB, has sought registration (application No 010 751 584);

               —

               award costs in favour of the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB;

               —

               order the defendant, OHIM, to produce the file concerning the action relating to that application for registration of a Community trade mark (application No 010 751 584).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a three-dimensional mark consisting of the form of a bottle, for goods in Class 32 — application No 010 751 584 for registration of a Community trade mark.

      Decision of the Examiner: application rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, together with the case-law of the European Union Courts.


title: Case T-130/11: Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Gossio v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/20

         Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Gossio v Council
   (Case T-130/11)
   2011/C 130/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Marcel GOSSIO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Marcel GOSSIO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the grounds for including the applicant on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotyped without any specific factual element making it possible to assess the relevance of that inclusion being mentioned.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant, being part of the administration, does not have, in view of his duties, power to recognise the authority of a specific president, but must perform his duties in the continuation of the administration to which he belongs.


title: Case C-298/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/22/EC — Approximation of laws — Social legislation relating to road transport activities — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-298/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/22/EC - Approximation of laws - Social legislation relating to road transport activities - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 113/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/22;

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-310/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique v Accor SA (Free movement of capital — Tax treatment of dividends — National rules conferring a tax credit in respect of dividends distributed by resident subsidiaries of parent companies — Refusal to grant a tax credit in respect of dividends distributed by non-resident subsidiaries — Redistribution of dividends by the parent company to its shareholders — Setting off the tax credit against the advance payment payable by the parent company at the time of redistribution — Refusal to reimburse the advance payment made by the parent company — Unjust enrichment — Evidence required regarding the taxation of non-resident subsidiaries)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique v Accor SA
   (Case C-310/09) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Tax treatment of dividends - National rules conferring a tax credit in respect of dividends distributed by resident subsidiaries of parent companies - Refusal to grant a tax credit in respect of dividends distributed by non-resident subsidiaries - Redistribution of dividends by the parent company to its shareholders - Setting off the tax credit against the advance payment payable by the parent company at the time of redistribution - Refusal to reimburse the advance payment made by the parent company - Unjust enrichment - Evidence required regarding the taxation of non-resident subsidiaries)
   2011/C 319/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

      Defendant: Accor SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty — National rules whereby dividends originating from subsidiaries established in the State of residence of the parent company are taxed in a different way from dividends originating from subsidiaries established in other Member States — Option of off-setting against the advance payment for which a parent company is liable when it redistributes such dividends to shareholders the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they come from a subsidiary established in France but not if they come from a subsidiary established in another Member State of the Community — Refusal to reimburse the advance payment made by the parent company, on grounds of unjust enrichment or absence of adverse effects on that company — Reimbursement of sums paid by the parent company conditional upon the production of evidence regarding the tax paid by its subsidiaries in a Member State other than that in which the parent company has its registered office — Compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State intended to eliminate economic double taxation of dividends, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they originate from a subsidiary established in that Member State, but does not offer that option if those dividends originate from a subsidiary established in another Member State, since, in that case, that legislation does not give entitlement to a tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends by that subsidiary.

               2.

               Where a national tax regime such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not of itself lead to the passing on to a third party of the tax unduly paid by the person liable for that tax, EU law precludes a Member State refusing to reimburse sums paid by the parent company on the grounds either that such reimbursement would lead to the unjust enrichment of the parent company, or that the sum paid by the parent company does not constitute an accounting or tax charge for it but is set off against the total of the sums which may be redistributed to its shareholders.

               3.

               The principles of equivalence and effectiveness do not preclude the reimbursement to a parent company of sums which ensure the application of the same tax regime to dividends distributed by its subsidiaries established in France and those distributed by the subsidiaries of that company established in other Member States, and subsequently redistributed by that parent company, being subject to the condition that the person liable for the tax furnish evidence which is in its sole possession and relating, with respect to each dividend concerned, in particular to the rate of taxation actually applied and the amount of tax actually paid on profits made by subsidiaries established in other Member States, whereas, with respect to subsidiaries established in France, that evidence, known to the administration, is not required. Production of that evidence may however be required only if it does not prove virtually impossible or excessively difficult to furnish evidence of payment of the tax by the subsidiaries established in the other Member States, in the light in particular of the provisions of the legislation of those Member States concerning the avoidance of double taxation, the recording of the corporation tax which must be paid and the retention of administrative documents. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met in the case before the national court.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-76/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/20

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-76/07)
   (2007/C 95/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products (1), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that directive;
               in the alternative:
               declare that by failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2005/28/EC expired on 29 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 91, p. 13.


title: Case T-21/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino)
      (Case T-21/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2012/2013-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu and Franmax UAB.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                  Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ 2015 C 107, 30.3.2015, p. 32.


title: Case C-28/12: Action brought on 18 January 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/23

         Action brought on 18 January 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-28/12)
   2012/C 73/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, K. Simonsson, S. Bartelt, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council of 16 June 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part; and on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part (2011/708/EU) (1);

               —

               order the effects of Decision 2011/708/EU to be maintained;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the ‘Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council’ of 16 June 2011 (Decision 2011/708/EU) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contested decision’ or ‘the contested measure’) which was adopted in the field of air transport. It concerns the signing and provisional application of the accession of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway to the Air Transport Agreement between the United States, of the one part, and the EU and its Member States, of the other part, as well as the signing and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement thereto.

               2.

               The Application is founded on the following three pleas in law:

               3.

               The Commission argues, first, that adopting the contested decision the Council has violated Article 13 (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in conjunction with Article 218 (2) and (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in so far as it transpires from Article 218 (2) and (5) TFEU that the Council is the institution designated to authorise the signing and provisional application of agreements. Therefore, the decision should have been solely taken by the Council and not also by the Member States, meeting within the Council.

               4.

               With its second plea, the Commission argues that by adopting the contested decision, the Council violated the first subparagraph of Article 218 (8) TFEU in conjunction with Article 100 (2) TFEU pursuant to which the Council shall act by qualified majority. The decision of the Member States, meeting within the Council, is not a decision of the Council, but an act taken by the Member States collectively as members of their governments and not in their capacity as members of the Council. Due to its nature, such an act requires unanimity. As a result, taking both decisions as one and making it subject to unanimity divests the qualified majority rule set out in the first subparagraph of Article 218 (8) TFEU of its very nature.

               5.

               Finally, the Council infringed the objectives set out in the Treaties and the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 13 (2) TEU. The Council should have exercised its powers so as not to circumvent the institutional framework of the Union and the Union procedures set out in Article 218 TFEU and should have done so in conformity with the objectives set out in the Treaties.

      (1)  OJ L 283, p. 1


title: Case C-103/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/3

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
   (Case C-103/07 P)
   (2007/C 129/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, accordingly,

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament;

               —

               annul the staff report for 2001;

               —

               award damages and interest for non material harm and harm to the his career, both on account of substantial irregularities and substantial delay in the writing of the staff report 2001 in a particularly distressing period for the appellant,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his appeal, the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance for having committed a number of errors of law in the interpretation of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the general provisions implementing those articles. More specifically, those errors concerned the broad interpretation by the Court of the limited situations in which an exception may be made to the rule that the staff report must be drafted and countersigned by two different members of hierarchy of the official under appraisal, and the interpretation by the Court that there is no need to consult the official's previous immediate hierarchical superior. As regards those two issues, the contested judgment suffers from numerous defects in the reasoning of the Court, which also misinterpreted the scope of several documents submitted to it by the appellant.


title: Case C-560/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-300/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/3

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-300/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-560/10 P)
   2011/C 72/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Attorneys at Law)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the General Court;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission (DG ENTR) to reject the bid of the Appellant in Lot 1, filed in response to the Call for Tender ENTR/05/078 — YOUR EUROPE Lot 1 (Editorial Work and Translations) for ‘Your Europe Portal Management and Maintenance’ (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder;

               —

               refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that in the contested Judgment the General Court erred in law and wrongly interpreted article 100 (2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Implementing Rules by accepting that, since the Appellant's tender did not reach the 70 % threshold, the Commission rightfully did not communicate to the Appellant the relative merits of the winning tenderer. Furthermore the Appellant maintains that the Judgment is insufficiently motivated since the General Court failed to examine thoroughly and individually the plea concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
   OJ L 248, p. 1


title: Case C-62/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda (Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Article 3 — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings — Competent authority for classifying the act)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda
   (Case C-62/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Article 3 - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings - Competent authority for classifying the act)
   (2008/C 51/19)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas

      Defendant: ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Ministério Público
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — ‘Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ — Concept and classification
   Operative part of the judgment
   Classification of an act as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties, falls within the competence of the customs authorities required to determine the exact amount of the import duties or export duties in question.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-58/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Club Hotel Loutraki e.a. v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/36

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Club Hotel Loutraki e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-58/13)
   2013/C 114/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Club Hotel Loutraki (Loutraki, Greece); Vivere Entertainment AE (Athens, Greece); Theros International Gaming, Inc. (Patra, Greece); Elliniko Casino Kerkyras (Athens); Casino Rodos (Rhodes, Greece); Porto Carras AE (Alimos, Greece); and Kazino Aigaiou AE (Syros, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 6777 final on the case of State aid SA 33988 (2011/N) dated 3 October 2012;

               —

               Order that the Commission bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to be heard as established in Article 108(2) TFEU by the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure according to Article 4(4), 6 and 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, which constitutes a misuse of power.

               —

               The Commission has infringed article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4 et sec. of the Regulation, to the extent that it substantially conducted a formal investigation procedure without adhering to its formal requirements thus depriving the applicants-complainants, as well as other concerned parties, from their right to be heard.
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the applicants’ right to good administration pursuant to Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union respectively.

               —

               By omitting all crucial economic data and figures, the contested decision fails to disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Commission in such a way as to allow the applicants’ to ascertain the reasons that have lead to the conclusion that the measures in question do not constitute state aid. These deficiencies cannot be justified by reference to the duty to preserve business confidentiality.

               —

               The applicants also contest the confidential nature of the crucial economic sizes.

         Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to effective judicial protection provided for in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               —

               For the same reasons set forward under plea No 2, the applicants’ right to effective judicial protection is being infringed. The applicants’ encounter difficulties in challenging directly the substance of the contested decision, as they are unable to ascertain, by any means, the reasoning behind it, this being solely based on economic data, all of which remains non-disclose.

         Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in law in assessing the conformity of the VLT Agreement jointly with the Addendum and in reaching the conclusion that these do not confer an economic advantage on OPAP..

               —

               The conferral of economic advantages, a formal requirement for the existence of state aid, must be assessed within a distinct market and not after joint consideration with other similar measures granted to the same recipient but in a different market, irrespective of whether the alter is comparable to the former. Otherwise, the protection of competition would be highly incomplete.

               —

               At any rate, such a joint assessment may not be conducted on measures to be applied during different time periods.


title: Case T-296/05: Action brought on 28 July 2005 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/13

         Action brought on 28 July 2005 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-296/05)
   (2005/C 257/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Trifase/Italy) [represented by: Alessandro Distante, lawyer]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the application addressed by the applicant to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant as reimbursement of the additional sum of up to 100 % of the medical expenses borne by him, and which he seeks to have reimbursed by the Joint Scheme, in the period 4 January 2002 to 19 May 2004, that being the difference between what has already been paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of medical expenses and 100 % of those expenses, i.e. the sum of EUR 2 572.32, or whatever lesser of greater sum the Court may see fit to award under this head;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant statutory interest at the rate of 10 %;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case challenges the defendant's refusal to reimburse at 100 % the medical expenses he has borne.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the duty to have regard to officials' welfare and of the principle of proper administration, and a complete lack of a statement of reasons and a manifest error of assessment.


title: Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 12/1

         Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
   Cases where the Commission raises no objections
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   2012/C 12/01

               Date of adoption of the decision

               26.4.2011

               Reference number of State aid

               SA.31494 (N 376/10)

               Member State

               Netherlands

               Region

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Natuurbeheer

               Legal basis

               Wet inrichting landelijk gebied

               Type of measure

               Aid scheme

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

                           Annual budget: EUR 28,5 million

                           Overall budget: EUR 171 million

               Intensity

               84 %

               Duration (period)

               1.1.2011-31.10.2017

               Economic sectors

               Agriculture

               Name and address of the granting authority

               Gedeputeerde staten van de provincies

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               20.12.2011

               Reference number of State aid

               SA.33370 (11/N)

               Member State

               France

               Region

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Régimes d'aide au cinéma et à l'audiovisuel

               Legal basis

               Décret 99-130 du 24 février 1999; décret 98-35 du 14 janvier 1998; décret 95-110 du 2 février 1995; loi 85-695 du 11 juillet 1985; décret 2008-508 du 29 mai 2008; décret 2008-509 du 29 mai 2009

               Type of measure

               Aid scheme

               Objective

               Culture

               Form of aid

               Parafiscal levy

               Budget

                           Annual budget: EUR 744 million

                           Overall budget: EUR 4 464 million

               Intensity

               50 %

               Duration (period)

               Until 31.12.2017

               Economic sectors

               Media

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Centre National du Cinéma et de l'Image Animée

                           12 rue de Lübeck

                           75784 Paris Cedex 16

                           FRANCE

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               8.11.2011

               Reference number of State aid

               SA.33538 (11/N)

               Member State

               Ireland

               Region

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Regional Airports — Capital Expenditure grant Scheme

               Legal basis

               Article 28.4 of the Constitution of Ireland Central Fund (Permament Provisions) Act, 1965; Appropration Act, 2010

               Type of measure

               Aid scheme

               Objective

               Sectoral development

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 65,5 million

               Intensity

               90 %

               Duration (period)

               Until 31.12.2014

               Economic sectors

               Air transport

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Department of Transport Tourism and Sport

                           44 Kildare Street

                           Dublin 2

                           IRELAND

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               20.12.2011

               Reference number of State aid

               SA.33662 (11/NN)

               Member State

               Germany

               Region

               Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Solon SE

               Legal basis

                           1.

                           Gesetz über die Feststellung des Bundeshaushaltsplans für das Jahr 2011 (Haushaltsgesetz 2011), vom 22. Dezember 2010

                           2.

                           Gesetz über die Feststellung des Haushaltsplans von Berlin für die Haushaltsjahre 2010 und 2011 (Haushaltsgesetz 2010/2011), vom 17. Dezember 2009

                           3.

                           Gesetz über die Feststellung des Haushaltsplans des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern für die Haushaltsjahre 2010 und 2011 und die Festlegung der Verbundquoten des Kommunalen Finanzausgleichs in den Jahren 2010 und 2011, vom 18. Dezember 2009

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               Objective

               Rescue of firms in difficulty

               Form of aid

               Guarantee, Interest subsidy

               Budget

                           Annual budget: EUR 46,84 million

                           Overall budget: EUR 46,84 million

               Intensity

               —

               Duration (period)

               8.8.2011-31.12.2011

               Economic sectors

               Electrical and optical equipment

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Tourismus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

                           Johannes-Stelling-Straße 14

                           19053 Schwerin

                           DEUTSCHLAND

                           Bundesamt für zentrale Dienste und offene Vermögensfragen

                           DGZ-Ring 12

                           13086 Berlin

                           DEUTSCHLAND

                           Senatsverwaltung für Finanzen Berlin

                           Klosterstraße 59

                           10179 Berlin

                           DEUTSCHLAND

                           Finanzministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

                           Schloßstraße 9-11

                           19053 Schwerin

                           DEUTSCHLAND

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm


title: Case T-417/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2006 — Endesa v Commission (Competition — Concentration — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Electricity market — Decision declaring that a concentration has no Community dimension — Calculation of turnover — Accounting criteria — Adjustments — Burden of proof — Rights of the defence)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2006 — Endesa v Commission
   (Case T-417/05) (1)

   (Competition - Concentration - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Electricity market - Decision declaring that a concentration has no Community dimension - Calculation of turnover - Accounting criteria - Adjustments - Burden of proof - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 224/87)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Endesa SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, S. Baxter, Solicitor, and M. Odriozola Alén, M. Muñoz de Juan, M. Merola, J. García de Enterría Lorenzo-Velázquez, J. Varcárcel Martínez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and M. Schneider, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado) and Gas Natural SDG SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Jiménez de la Iglesia and A. Leis García, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 15 November 2005 declaring that a concentration has no Community dimension (Case COMP/M.3986 — Gas Natural/Endesa)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the Commission and Gas Natural SDG SA, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22 of 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-3/03 P: Appeal brought on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
22.3.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/3
5.   Does this apply also where it may be assumed that the              Pleas in law and main arguments
     person will be released after an insignificant, reasonable
     time, but must then submit to treatment for drug abuse             —     Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/
     and will not be able to take up employment until he has                  94; the trade mark applied for, ‘MATRATZEN markt
     completed additional school education?                                   CONCORD’, which consists of three words and a figurat-
                                                                              ive element, and the opposing earlier trade mark, ‘Matrat-
6.   Is Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as                zen’, are not similar, but completely different. The Court
     meaning that the court requires to take into account a                   of First Instance did not base its assessment on the overall
     change in circumstances which occurs after the most                      impression created by the marks and thus failed to have
     recent administrative decision and which is favourable to                regard to the principles established in the judgment of
     the person concerned such that it would preclude the                     the Court of Justice in Case C-251/95 (SABEL). The
     application of any of the limitations in Article 14 of                   finding that the word ‘MATRATZEN’ alone is the domi-
     Decision No 1/80?                                                        nant feature of the trade mark applied for is contrary to
                                                                              the rules of logic and to experience.
                                                                        —     Breach of the principle of the free movement of goods
                                                                              (Articles 28 and 30 EC); the opposition based on the
                                                                              earlier mark is an abuse of a formal legal position. This
                                                                              was not sufficiently assessed by the Court of First Instance.
Appeal brought on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, against the
judgment delivered on 23 October 2002 by the Fourth                     (1 ) OJ 2003 C 19.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                         and Designs)
                        (Case C-3/03 P)
                                                                        Appeal brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission
                        (2003/C 70/06)                                  of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                        ered on 25 October 2002 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        case T-5/02 between Tetra Laval BV and the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2002                              of the European Communities
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen
Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the                                             (Case C-12/03 P)
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen                                               (2003/C 70/07)
Concord GmbH, represented by Dr Wolf-W. Wodrich,
Rechtsanwalt, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-45128 Essen, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, assisted by Patentanwälte
Zenz, Helber, Hosbach & Partner, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 October 2002
45128 Essen.                                                            by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in case T-5/02 (1) between Tetra Laval
                                                                        BV and the Commission of the European Communities,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the
—    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           European Communities, represented by Michel Petite, Anthony
     the European Communities of 23 October 2002 in Case                Whelan and Per Hellström, acting as agents, with an address
     T-6/01 ( 1),                                                       for service in Luxembourg.
—    reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings
     before the Board of Appeal of 21 April 1998 (OHIM ref.:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
     B 32 500),
—    order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings                  —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the                       25 October 2002 in case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV v
     proceedings before the Opposition Division and before                    Commission;
     the Board of Appeal of OHIM, as well as the costs of the
     proceedings on the action and on this appeal.                      —     order Tetra Laval BV to pay the Commission’s costs.


title: Case C-164/02: Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 156/9
Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the                            views on future developments within that sector. By so
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                            doing, the Commission has created legitimate expec-
                          Communities                                         tations.
                        (Case C-164/02)
                                                                        (1) Even though this is compatible with the common market under
                        (2002/C 156/16)                                     Article 87(3)(c) EC, with reference to point 38 of the Guidelines
                                                                            on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             de Comarca de Alcácer do Sal by order of that Court of
                                                                        26 April 2002 in the case of Daniel Fernando Messejana
1.    Annul Commission Decision SG (2002) D/228533 of                   Viegas against Companhia de Seguros Zurich S.A. and
      15 February 2002 relating to Aid Measure No N 812/                Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal S.A., CGU International
      2001 (the Decision, Annex 1) in so far as the Commission            Insurance plc — Agência Geral em Portugal, intervener
      takes the view therein that the contributions paid to
      port authorities pursuant to the Stimuleringsregeling
      verwerking baggerspecie (Rules on incentives to encour-                                      (Case C-166/02)
      age the recycling of dredging silt) constitute State aid
      within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC (1);                                                  (2002/C 156/17)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunal Judicial de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Comarca de Alcácer do Sal of 26 April 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 2 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
—     Breach of Article 87 EC: the Netherlands Government               case of Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas against Companhia
      considers that the Commission errs in taking the view             de Seguros Zurich S.A. and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal
      that, in the administration of waterways and the mainten-         S.A., CGU International Insurance plc — Agência Geral em
      ance of general infrastructures in port areas, port auth-         Portugal, intervener.
      orities may be regarded as being undertakings within the
      meaning of Article 87(1) EC. In the opinion of the
      Netherlands Government, the administration of shipping            The Tribunal Judicial de Comarca de Alcácer do Sal requests
      channels (including dredging) must be regarded in this            the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the interpretation of
      connection as being a public responsibility and not an            Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983
      economic activity. Investments in infrastructures of this         on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
      kind are, under normal circumstances, regarded by the             to third-party liability insurance in respect of the use of motor
      Commission as constituting general measures, expendi-             vehicles (2), having regard to Article 508 of the Civil Code.
      ture on which is borne by the State as part of its
      responsibilities within the area of planning and develop-
      ment of a transport system serving the general public
      interest, on condition that the infrastructures, in accord-       (1) OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17.
      ance with Community legislation, are de jure and de facto         (2) Which, in the applicant’s view, fixes the minimum capital
      open to all actual or potential users.                                for compulsory third-party insurance without establishing any
                                                                            dichotomy of schemes or limits to strict liability, with the result
                                                                            that, if the accident had taken place in any other country within
—     Infringement of the principle that reasons must be given.             the Community, the person responsible would have had to pay
                                                                            compensation up to the amount compulsorily insured (which
—     Infringement of the principles of the protection of                   now is EUR 600 000). Moreover, the limit imposed by that
      legitimate expectations and of legal certainty: the Com-              directive is a minimum amount, which implies the repeal of
                                                                            Article 508 of the Civil Code which sets the maximum amount of
      mission has, in a number of documents, made known its
                                                                            compensation in the case of a road traffic accident at ‘the amount
      views on State aid within the ports sector. In these                  equal to twice the maximum value of actions which may be
      documents, which consist of a variety of decisions, the               decided on appeal’ (that is to say, EUR 29 927,88).
      Commission has, on the one hand, detailed and clarified
      the Treaty provisions relating to, inter alia, State aid
      within the ports sector, and, on the other, set out its


title: Removal from the register of C-7/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case C-11/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Bayer CropScience AG

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Bayer CropScience AG
   (Case C-11/13)
   2013/C 86/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: Bayer CropScience AG

      Question referred

   The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(1) and of Article 1.8 and 1.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96: (1)

   Are the terms ‘product’ in Article 3(1) and Article 1.8 and ‘active substance’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation to be interpreted as covering a safener?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30).


title: Case T-332/00: Action brought on 27 October 2000 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.1.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 4/7
Action brought on 23 October 2000 by Anthony Gold-                      Action brought on 27 October 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                                ties                                                              Communities
                        (Case T-326/00)                                                          (Case T-332/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/11)
                          (2001/C 4/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities on 27 October 2000 by Rica Foods
European Communities on 23 October 2000 by Anthony                      (Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represented
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy of                     by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Merriman White Solicitors, London.                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route
                                                                        d’Esch.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 10 August 2000
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant pursuant            —     annul Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 (1);
      to Article 86 EC concerning the violation of Articles 81
      and 82 EC by the General Medical Council;                         —     declare that the Community is liable for the loss and
                                                                              damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact
                                                                              that, since 1 October 2000, imports of the products
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                              referred to in Regulation No 2081/2000 have been
                                                                              prevented or restricted on account of that regulation, and
                                                                              order that the parties are to seek to reach agreement
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               concerning the extent of the loss and damage suffered by
                                                                              the applicant and that, in the absence of agreement in
                                                                              that regard, the proceedings are to be resumed within a
By Application lodged in Case T-175/00 (1), the applicant in                  time-limit to be fixed by the Court in order for the extent
the current case has challenged the inaction of the Commission                of the loss and damage to be determined; or, at any rate,
in relation to one complaint, focused on the alleged anti-                    order the Community to pay the damages provisionally
competitive practices on the part of the General Medical                      estimated and yet to be assessed, alternatively order the
Council (GMC), a statutory body which regulates the medical                   Community to pay such amount of damages as the Court
profession in the territory of the United Kingdom.                            shall deem fair and equitable, together with interest at the
                                                                              annual rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the
                                                                              date of payment in full;
By decision of 10 August 2000, the Commission formally
rejected the above mentioned complaint. The present Appli-              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
cation attacks this decision.
On support of its conclusions, the applicant submits an                 Pleas in law and principal arguments
infringement of Article 86 (ex-Article 90) of the EC Treaty. It
is stated on this point that such a violation of the European
competition Law raises from, in the first place, by wrongly             The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
failing to examine the validity of national legislation, and, in        applicant are similar to those in Case T-94/00.
the second place, by wrongly assessing the analytical data on
which basis can be concluded that the essential elements of a
situation in which Article 86 EC applies are in fact present.           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
                                                                            2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
                                                                            measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
                                                                            of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
(1) JO C 285 of 7.10.00, p. 11.                                             L 246 of 30 September 2000, p. 64).