title: Case T-230/10: Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/42

         Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-230/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/65
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to the extent that it is the subject of this action for annulment, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against two of the financial corrections decided by the Commission, and is based on the infringement of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance, (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups, (3) relied on by the Commission as the basis for those corrections:

               As regards the exclusion of the costs of environmental management of packaging, the Commission interprets Article 15(5) of Regulation 2200/96 and Annex I of Regulation 1433/2003 as meaning that, when fixing the flat rate for aid, Member States must comply with the rule that aid is only granted in respect of expenditure borne by the producer organisations, and direct evidence is required of that fact.

               The Kingdom of Spain considers that, taking into consideration the objectives and the wording of the abovementioned provisions, it cannot be necessary to require reliable proof that the costs have been borne by the producer organisations. Further, in any event, the reality is that the producer organisations do bear the costs of environmental management of packaging, given that the distributors pass the cost to them by means of paying a lower price for their products.

               As regards weaknesses in the system for the control of recognition of the SAT Royal producer organisation, the Commission considers that the rule that no single member of a producer organisation may have more than 20 % of the voting rights must also apply to the natural persons who are shareholders in bodies which, in turn, are members of a producer organisation. The Kingdom of Spain considers that the rule laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation 1432/2003 applies only to those who are members of the organisation, and there is no requirement to analyse the share structure of the bodies which make up the producer organisation.

      (1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 25

      (3)  OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 18


title: Case T-124/10: Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/45

         Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)
   (Case T-124/10)
   2010/C 134/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vinotasia GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 14 January 2010 in Case R 1054/2008-4;

               —

               reject Opposition No B 1 027 947, lodged on 30 June 2006, in so far as it was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 March 2008;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               in the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision is taken on the application for a declaration of invalidity, lodged on 17 March 2010 at the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, against the earlier German mark No 302 15 015 ‘VINOSTASIA’

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VITASIA’ for goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 (Application No 4 691 101)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vinotasia GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘VINOTASIA’ No 302 15 015 for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To dismiss the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in that no likelihood of confusion between the abovementioned marks exists

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-483/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2014  — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2014 — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group
   (Case C-483/14)
   (2015/C 046/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: KA Finanz AG

      Applicant and respondent: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(2)(e) of the 1980 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘the Convention’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘company law’ excepted area includes.

                           (a)

                           reorganisations such as mergers and divisions, and

                           (b)

                           in connection with reorganisations, the creditor protection provision in Article 15 of the Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (2)?

               2.

               Is the conclusion the same if Article 15 of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (3) is applicable?

               3.

               If the replies to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: Does the excepted area in Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘the Rome I Regulation’) (4) — as the successor provision to Article 1(2)(e) of the Convention — lead to the same conclusion, or must it be interpreted differently? If so, how?

               4.

               Are any requirements concerning the treatment of mergers in relation to conflict of laws to be inferred from European primary law such as the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU, the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU and the free movement of capital and payments under Article 63 TFEU, in particular as to whether the national law of the State of the outwardly merging company or the national law of the target company is to be applied?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the negative: Are any principles concerning treatment in relation to conflict of laws to be inferred from European secondary law such as Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (5) or Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies or the Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning the division of public limited liability companies (6), in particular as to whether the national law of the State of the outwardly merging company or the national law of the target company is to be applied, or are national conflict-of-law rules free to decide to which substantive national law reference should be made?

               6.

               Is Article 15 of the Third Council Directive 78/855/ECC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies to be interpreted as meaning that the issuer is entitled, as against holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, particularly in the case of subordinated loans, to terminate the legal relationship and to pay off the persons entitled in the case of a cross-border merger?

               7.

               May the same conclusion be reached by applying Article 15 of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies?

      (1)  80/934/EEC: Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1978 L 295, p. 36.

      (3)  OJ 2011 L 110, p. 1.

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

      (5)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47.


title: Case T-379/09: Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/59

         Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-379/09)
   2009/C 282/110
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2009) 5497 of 13 July 2009 concerning State aid schemes No C 6/2004 (ex NN 70/01) and C 5/2005 (ex NN 71/04) implemented by Italy in favour of greenhouse growers (exemption from excise duties on gas oil used to heat greenhouses);

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Italian Government challenges before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Commission Decision C (2009) 5497 of 13 July 2009 concerning State aid schemes No C 6/2004 (ex NN 70/01) and C 5/2005 (ex NN 71/04) implemented by Italy in favour of greenhouse growers (exemption from excise duties on gas oil used to heat greenhouses).
   The applicant relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.
   By its first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC in so far as the legal provisions in question, which are regarded as constituting State aid incompatible with the common market, are not selective, on account of the fact that it is possible for any operator in the agricultural sector to benefit from the reduced rate of excise duty on gas oil used for heating greenhouses, and also the fact that there are fundamental differences between cultivation in greenhouses and cultivation in the open air, for which there are no production costs in respect of gas oil for heating purposes.
   By the second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 87(1) EC on the additional ground that the legal provisions in question do not in any way distort competition. In support of its position, the applicant refers to the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013, paragraph 167 of which expressly states that total or partial exemptions from tax on motor fuels used for primary production in the agricultural sector will not unduly distort competition in the light of the small-scale structure of farms in the European Union.
   By its third plea, the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons as regards the purported distortion of competition.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Directive 92/81/EEC, (1) Article 15 of Directive 2003/96/EC (2) and Articles 33, 36 and 87 EC. It is submitted, in particular, that the exemptions were expressly authorised by those directives and that, in any event, the assessment as to whether the provisions in question are compatible with Community law must be carried out by taking account not only of the competition rules but also, and primarily, the provisions of the common agricultural policy. It is submitted in that connection that the common agricultural policy is intended to take precedence over the competition rules. It follows that as the contested measures are in line with the objectives set out in Article 33 EC, any argument that the application of the rules on State aid should take precedence is destined to fail.
   By its fifth and last plea, the applicant complains of infringement of Article 87(3) EC, maintaining, in any event, that the derogation laid down in that provision is applicable, with specific reference to the applicability of the derogation for reasons of environmental protection referred to at paragraph 3.5 of the Community guidelines on State aid in the agriculture sector of 2000.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12).

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


title: Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/41

         Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-377/16)
   (2016/C 343/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful.


title: Case C-419/07: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/32

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-419/07) (1)

   (2008/C 285/55)

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-21/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Simon, Evers & Co GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Simon, Evers & Co GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-21/13)
   2013/C 114/37
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Simon, Evers & Co GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Question referred

   Is Council Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 of 11 June 2009 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, (1) invalid because the Commission, by misjudging the requirements arising from Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community concerning the finding of a circumvention of anti-dumping duty measures, (2) presumed that there was a circumvention merely because the volume of exports in question from Thailand increased significantly after the imposition of the measures, although the Commission, with reference to the lack of cooperation from Thai exporters, made no further specific findings?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 151, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


No C 74/18         EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 3 . 95
     Removal from the register of Case T-520/93 ( )             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                      ( 95/C 74/39 )                            from the register of Case T-520/93 : Pacific Fruit Company
                                                                Italy SpA v. Council of the European Union and
             (Language of the case: Italian)                    Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 14 February 1995 the President of the Second
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First            (!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .


title: Case T-345/14: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2014  — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHMI — Locura Digital (WOUXUN) (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/22

         Order of the General Court of 28 November 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHMI — Locura Digital (WOUXUN)
   (Case T-345/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 056/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 407/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WOUXUN as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-372/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 11 September 2006 — Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 11 September 2006 — Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-372/06)
   (2006/C 294/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asda Stores Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   Questions referred
   Questions concerning non-preferential origin
   Compatibility with the Code of relevant provisions of Annex 11 to the Implementing Regulation

               (1)

               Are the rules for determining non-preferential origin contained in Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 (2) establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Implementing Regulation’) invalid for the colour televisions (‘CTVs’) produced in Turkey falling within combined nomenclature ex 8528 as set out in Column 3 to the table for that heading, by virtue of an incompatibility with the provisions of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Community Customs Code’)?

               (2)

               In the event that the specific origin rule for CTVs falling within combined nomenclature ex 8528 as set out in Column 3 to the table for that heading contained in Annex 11 to the Implementing Regulation is valid, does the non-preferential origin of a separate part, such as a chassis, which incorporated in a finished CTV, have to be determined separately; and, if so, is that non-preferential origin to be determined on the basis of:

                           (a)

                           the physical processing or working of the product, for the purposes of analysing where the product in question has undergone its last, substantial, economically justified processing or working (assuming the other requirements of Article 24 of the Community Customs Code are met); or

                           (b)

                           Specific and residual rules agreed by the European Commission and Member States for the purposes of the European Community's Negotiating Position before the World Trade Organisation in the harmonisation of non-preferential rules of origin, the specific rule in the present circumstances being a 45 % added value test and the residual rule being that the country of origin of the good shall be the country in which the major portion of the non-originating materials originated as determined on the basis of each chapter, subject, however, to the qualification that when the originating materials represent at least 50 % of all the materials used, the country of origin of the good shall be the country of origin of those materials, or

                           (c)

                           some other basis?

               (3)

               If a part of a CTV, such as a chassis, has obtained local origin under Article 24 of the Community Customs Code on the basis of a physical processing or working test, is it then still necessary to determine a value for such part in order to apply to the CTV the specific origin rule for CTVs contained in Annex 11 to the Implementing Regulation?

               (4)

               In the event that the rules agreed for the EC Negotiating Position before the WTO can be applied when applying Annex 11, is it necessary for a part of a CTV, such as a chassis, to have its own actual ex-works price, or may it be ascribed a value equivalent to an ex-works price?

               (5)

               If the answer to either question (3) or question (4) requires an equivalent value to an actual ex-works price to be considered, how is that value to be determined? In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is it appropriate to apply: (i) Articles 29 or 30 of the Community Customs Code; (ii) any of Articles 141 to 153 of the Implementing Regulation; and (iii) any of the Interpretative Notes on Customs Value set out in Annex 23 to the Implementing Regulation?

                           (b)

                           What form of evidence of value or cost is needed?

                           (c)

                           In what circumstances may recourse be had to a computed or constructed cost of a part of a CTV in assessing its non-preferential origin?

                           (d)

                           What type of costs may be taken into account in calculating a computed or constructed cost of a part?

                           (e)

                           Is it appropriate to apply average values over a period of time in determining the duty liability of a specific product at a specific point in time?

                           (f)

                           Is it appropriate to use different methodologies for calculating costs or values when comparing the cost or value of a part with the cost or value of a completed, exported product?

         Questions concerning Articles 44 to 47 of Decision No. 1/95 and Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement

               (6)

               Do the provisions of Article 44(2) of Decision No. 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union, read together with Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement, require the Community to have made an application for a recommendation to the EC-Turkey Council of Association and to have made a notification to the EC-Turkey Council of Association prior to making the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 2584/98 (3) also applicable to products imported from Turkey and which were in free circulation?

               (7)

               Does Article 46 of Decision No. 1/95 require that the Community, having amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 2584/98 the product scope and duty rates imposed by three previous Council Regulations on imports of certain CTVs originating in China and Korea, inform the Customs Union Joint Committee that it intends to apply these measures also to imports from Turkey, before it can make imports from Turkey of CTVs originating in China or Korea and in free circulation, subject to the application of the new anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 2584/98?

               (8)

               Do Articles 44 to 47 of Decision No. 1/95 require that traders be informed, or otherwise be made aware, of information given pursuant to Article 46 of Decision No. 1/95 or a notification made pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement?

               (9)

               In the event that an application, notification or information is required:

                           (a)

                           What form must any such measure of application and notification pursuant to Article 44 of Decision No. 1/95, read together with Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement, take?

                           (b)

                           What form must any measure of information given pursuant to Article 46 of Decision No. 1/95 take?

                           (c)

                           Do the steps taken by the European Commission in the present case sufficiently comply with the required form of application, notification or information?

                           (d)

                           What is the consequence of non-compliance?

               (10)

               Are Articles 44, 46 and 47 of Decision No. 1/95 and Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement directly applicable or of direct effect in national courts, so as to confer upon individual traders the right to rely upon any breach of the same in order to resist the payment of anti-dumping duties otherwise due?

      (1)  OJ L 11, P.88

      (2)  OJ L 3, P.23

      (3)  OJ L 324, p. 1


title: Case T-222/10: Action brought on 12 May 2010 — ratiopharm v OHIM — nycomed (ZUFAL)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/27

         Action brought on 12 May 2010 — ratiopharm v OHIM — nycomed (ZUFAL)
   (Case T-222/10)
   2010/C 195/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 March 2010 in Case R 874/2008-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ZUFAL’ for goods in Class 5.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: nycomed GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘ZURCAL’ for goods in Class 5 and three national word marks ‘ZURCAL’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-179/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/ 17
The maritime agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg                 Infringement of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Economic Union and Malaysia, signed at Kuala Lumpur                 No 1956 / 88 ( 2 ), as amended by Council
on 12 February 1985 , contains a cargo-sharing                      Regulation ( EC ) No 3067 / 95 ( 3 ) :
arrangement. Concluded by Belgium in the name of the
Union in accordance with Article 31 of the Treaty
establishing the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union, the               the contested provision also infringes paragraph 10 ( iv ) of
agreement entered into force on 17 August 1987 and is a             the Annex to the above regulation, which also provides
future agreement covered by Article 5 of the regulation,            that 'a NAFO inspector from another Contracting Party
with which it is incompatible.                                      may, subject to the consent of the Contracting Party of the
                                                                    vessel, board the vessel as it is proceeding to port, may
                                                                    remain on board the vessel as it proceeds to port and may
O OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986, p . 1 .
                                                                    be present during the inspection of the vessel in port.' But,
                                                                    when Article 4 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1956/88
                                                                    empowers the Commission to adopt implementing
                                                                    measures under the Management Committee procedure, it
                                                                    does not allow it in any circumstances to approve
                                                                    provisions which are contrary to the Regulation which it
Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain               purports to implement.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case C-l 79/97                             H OJ No L 77, 19 . 3 . 1997, p. 5 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 6 . 7. 1988 , p. 1 .
                         ( 97/C 199/32 )                            ( 3 ) OJ No L 329, 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
12 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by
Rosario Silva de la Puerta, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                    Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Commission of the
E. Servais .                                                            European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-183/97)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                                97/C 199/33 )
— annul Article 4a ( 6 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
     No 2868/88 establishing detailed rules for the                 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     application of the Joint International Inspection              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     Scheme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries            on 12 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
     Organization, as modified by Commission Regulation             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
     ( EC ) No 494/97 H of 18 March 1997, and                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Infringement of Annex I , point II ( 9 ) ( e ) ( iv )               — declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
of the Convention between the Community                                    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
and Canada on fishing under the NAFO                                       comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
arrangements :                                                             17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
                                                                           against pollution caused by certain dangerous
                                                                           substances ('), in particular with respect to the
according to that Convention, for a NAFO inspector of
                                                                           obligations arising from Articles 8 , 9, 10, 11 and 15
another Contracting Party to take part in an inspection
                                                                           thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
carried out in port, the consent is required of the
Contracting Party whose flag the vessel is flying. There is                obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of
thus a clear contradiction between the content of the                      the EC Treaty and Article 21 ( 1 ) of Directive 80/68/
                                                                           EEC ,
contested regulation, which does not require the consent
to be obtained of the Contracting Party whose flag the
vessel is flying, and the Convention on which it is based.          — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
An internal Community provision cannot override the                        Commission       forthwith        of such measures,  the
provisions of an international commitment. The primacy                     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of international agreements concluded by the Community                     under the abovementioned provisions;
over instruments of secondary Community law means that
the latter must be interpreted in accordance with those
agreements .                                                        — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case F-51/12: Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v EMA

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/14

         Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-51/12)
   2012/C 209/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s request for renewal of his temporary staff contract by the European Medicines Agency.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 1 September 2011 by which the EMA rejected the applicant’s request of 22 August 2011 for renewal of his temporary staff contract;

               —

               order the European Medicines Agency to pay to the applicant, on a provisional basis and subject to increase, the sum of EUR 1;

               —

               order the European Medicines Agency to pay the costs.


title: Case T-44/10 P: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Obligation to state reasons — Act adversely affecting an official — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/18

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-44/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Obligation to state reasons - Act adversely affecting an official - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 139/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-32/05: Action brought on 19 January 2005 by Claire Staelen against European Parliament

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/22

         Action brought on 19 January 2005 by Claire Staelen against European Parliament
   (Case T-32/05)
   (2005/C 115/43)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 2005 by Claire Staelen, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg), represented by Joëlle Choucroun, lawyer, having an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the selection board of 18 August 2004 in Competition EUR/A/151/98;

               2.

               order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000 in respect of compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered, increased by the statutory interest in force in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from the date of the judgment to be delivered until full and final settlement, the substantive damage being reserved;

               3.

               order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant had brought an action against the decision of the selection board in Competition EUR/151/98. By judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 March 2003 in Case T-24/01, that decision was set aside. Following that annulment, the Parliament reopened the competition and the selection board resumed its deliberations. By the decision contested in the present case, the selection board for the competition decided not to place the applicant on the list of successful candidates.
   In support of her action, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 233 EC, maintenance of discriminatory treatment and infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-369/00: Action brought on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Council of the European Union

text:
4.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/19
Action brought on 25 September 2000 by the Com-                            Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the                            of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         Kingdom of Spain                                                             of Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-366/00)
                          (Case C-354/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/36)
                          (2000/C 316/35)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                  Communities, represented by Roland Tricot, of its Legal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Sep-                Service, and Panayotis Panayatopoulos, a national civil servant
tember 2000 by the Commission of the European Communi-                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
ties, represented by G. Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal Service,
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Wagner Centre.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Declare that, by failing to adopt, or, in the alternative,
                                                                                failing to inform the Commission of, the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions which are necessary in
1.    declare that, by failing to classify as special protection
                                                                                order fully to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of
      areas for birds in the Comunidad de Murcia the areas
                                                                                3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      identified by scientific evidence as most suitable for the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
      conservation of protected species, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                projects on the environment (1), the Grand Duchy of
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of
                                                                                EC Treaty;
      wild birds;
                                                                           —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by
                                                                           Article 3 of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March 1999.
The Commission considers that the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case C-3/96 (2) supports the use in this instance of            (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
the list drawn up by the Sociedad Española de Ornitologia                 (2) See p. 16 of this Official Journal.
(Spanish Ornithological Society, ‘the SEO’) for the purpose of
deciding which areas must be designated Special Protection
Areas for Birds (SPABs) in Murcia. The Commission therefore
considers classification of the territories of the Comunidad
Autónoma de Murcia as SPABs (3) to be essential, unless the
Spanish authorities had provided, which they did not, scientific
data other than those in the list concerned.                               Action brought on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
(1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
(2) Judgment of 19 May 1998 in Case C-3/96 Commission v                                               (Case C-369/00)
    Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031.
(3) In all, only 31 701 hectares of the 291 083 hectares recognised                                   (2000/C 316/37)
    in the SEO’s inventory, that is to say, only 10,2 % of the area of
    the territories listed as Important Areas for Birds have been
    declared to be SPAPs.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                           represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the European Law
                                                                           Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague,
                                                                           acting as Agent.
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      Infringement of Article 255 EC:
1.    Annul Decision 2000/527/EC;                                              —     In the first place, Decision 2000/527/EC was not
                                                                                adopted in accordance with the procedure in
2.    Order the Council to pay the costs.                                            Article 251 EC. The decision is not based on a
                                                                                proposal emanating from the Commission. Decision
                                                                                2000/527/EC was not adopted by the European
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      Parliament and the Council.
                                                                               —     Second, Decision 2000/527/EC does not deal with
—     Lack of competence and infringement of essential pro-                          general principles and limits on grounds of public
      cedural requirements:                                                          or private interest governing the right of access to
                                                                                documents. Decision 2000/527/EC does not indi-
      —     Decision 2000/527/EC (1) fails to take account of                        cate the conditions under which that right can be
            the fact that, as from 1 May 1999, Article 255 EC                        exercised but excludes entirely one category of
            alone can constitute the legal basis for rules govern-                   documents.
            ing public access to documents. By basing Decision
            2000/527/EC on Article 207 EC and adopting it in                         Both from the wording of Article 255 EC and from
            accordance with the procedure set out in that article,                   Articles 255 EC and 28 TEU, read in conjunction, it
            the Council has infringed the prerogatives of the                        is clear that Community law does not provide for
            Commission and of the European Parliament.                               any power under which documents, whether or not
                                                                                with a specific classification, concerning security or
      —     The Council has also infringed the legal position of                     defence matters of the Union or of one or more of
            the Members of the Council inasmuch as decisions                         its Member States, or relating to military and non-
            taken on the basis of Article 207 EC require an                          military crisis management, may as such be excluded
            absolute majority (Article 205(1) EC), whereas                           from the public right of access. Article 255 EC does
            Article 255 EC, in conjunction with Article 251 EC,                      not in any way exclude the possibility that provision
            provides for decisions to be adopted by qualified                        may be made for refusing access to a document in
            majority.                                                                connection with a specific request. Classification of
                                                                                information is carried out with an essentially differ-
      The fact that the rules provided for in Article 255 EC                         ent objective to the taking of decisions on requests
      have not yet been established is immaterial; any other                         for authorisation of access to documents. Decision
      interpretation of Article 255 EC would seriously affect                        2000/527/EC thus uses the criteria of the Council
      the efficacy of the provision. Until such time as these new                    Decision (2) for a purpose other than that for which
      rules on openness have been established, in any event                          they are intended.
      until 1 May 2001 at the latest, the rules governing access
      to documents remain those which applied when the                  (1) OJ 2000 L 212, p. 9.
      Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force. Following the             (2) Decision of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representa-
      entry into force of Article 255 EC, these latter rules can            tive for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of 27 July 2000
      be amended only in accordance with the procedure set                  on measures for the protection of classified information applicable
      out in that provision.                                                to the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2000 C 239, p. 1).


title: Case T-345/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — La Banque Postale v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/60

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — La Banque Postale v Commission
   (Case T-345/07)
   (2007/C 269/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: La Banque Postale (represented by: S. Hautbourg and J.-E. Skovron, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in its entirety the contested decision on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier (Monetary and Financial Code) which reserve for three credit institutions — the applicant, the Caisses d'Epargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel — special rights for the distribution of the savings account books known as ‘livret A’ and ‘livret bleu’.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its right to a fair hearing during the procedure which led to the contested decision in that the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment on two reports provided to the Commission by the complainants and which, according to the applicant, transpired to form a fundamental part of the Commission's case.
   Second, it claims that the Commission made numerous errors of law and of appraisal in holding that the distribution arrangements for the livret A constituted a restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in law by giving a very broad interpretation to the notion of ‘restrictions’ in the sense of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and to the circumstances in which those two principles may be relied upon. The applicant also submits that the Commission concluded, wrongly, that the special right makes establishment on the French market for bank savings more difficult and more costly.
   Third, the applicant claims that the contested decision is tainted by errors of law and of appraisal in so far as the Commission held that the current arrangements for distribution of the livret A could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC. According to the applicant, the Commission made an error of law and several errors of appraisal in its definition of accessibility to banking services connected with the livret A as a service of general economic interest and in its analysis of whether the special right was necessary and proportionate in order to carry out the service of general economic interest of accessibility to banking services and of that relating to social housing.
   According to its fourth plea in law, the applicant contends that the reasons given for the contested decision are contradictory and inadequate.


title: Case F-3/13: Action brought on 14 January 2013 — CK v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/31

         Action brought on 14 January 2013 — CK v Commission
   (Case F-3/13)
   2013/C 129/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CK (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the applicant’s career development report.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the career development report for 2011 drawn up on 14 February 2012 and definitively adopted on 9 March 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 5 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm which resulted from that report;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-2/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 9 — Postal services in the European Union — Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority — Scope)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
   (Case C-2/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 9 - Postal services in the European Union - Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority - Scope))
   (2017/C 014/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL Express (Austria) GmbH

      Defendant: Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(2), second subparagraph, fourth indent, of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on all postal service providers, including those which do not provide postal services falling within the scope of the universal service, the obligation to contribute to the financing of the national regulatory authorities responsible for that sector.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-526/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Non bis in idem — Res judicata — Articles 226 EC and 228 EC — Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure — Language of the case — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Non-compliance of national measures with the rules relating to the periods, conditions and techniques of land application of fertiliser — Minimum storage capacity for liquid manure — Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground — Techniques ensuring a uniform and effective land application of fertiliser)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-526/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Non bis in idem - Res judicata - Articles 226 EC and 228 EC - Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure - Language of the case - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Non-compliance of national measures with the rules relating to the periods, conditions and techniques of land application of fertiliser - Minimum storage capacity for liquid manure - Prohibition on land application on steeply sloping ground - Techniques ensuring a uniform and effective land application of fertiliser)
   2010/C 234/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, N. von Lingen and B. Smulders, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and P. Kinsch, avocat)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and properly with Articles 4 and 5, in conjunction with Annex II A(1) and Annex III 1(1), Annex II A(5) and Annex III 1(2), Annex II A(2) and Annex II A(6) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) — Procedures, conditions and periods of land application of fertilisers — Minimum manure storage capacity — Prohibition of land application on steeply sloping grounds — Techniques for ensuring uniform and efficient land application of fertilisers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, in conjunction with Annex II A(1), (2), (5) and (6), and Annex III(1)(1) and (2) thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-139/03: Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 124/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.5.2003
Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in            The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,           5 December 2001.
quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
ture or production.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
( 1) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
     Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
     tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
     products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
     plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
     of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
     agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-        Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission
     duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
( 4) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.                                                                               Sweden
                                                                                (Case C-141/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/20)
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
                            of Germany
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-139/03)
                          (2003/C 124/19)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other
                                                                                provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive
                                                                                2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     between Member States and public undertakings or, in
ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                          any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and                       the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service                 under the directive, and
in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,               Pleas in law and principal arguments
       regulations and administrative provisions to implement
       Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000
       amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
                                                                           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
       Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
       visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              on 31 July 2001.
       action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the
       Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
       directive;                                                          (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
2.     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-10/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions — Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-10/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Deductibility of gifts to research and teaching institutions - Deductibility limited to gifts to institutions established in national territory)
   2011/C 232/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — National rules which make the granting of the tax advantage provided for donations to research and public-education establishments subject to the condition that the beneficiary of the donation is established within the national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising the deduction from tax of gifts to research and teaching institutions exclusively where those institutions are established in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-127/09: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Claim for damages — Causal link — None)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/16

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Abdulrahim v Council and Commission
   (Case T-127/09) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Claim for damages - Causal link - None)
   2012/C 126/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially J. Jones, Barrister, and M. Arani, Solicitor, and subsequently by E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Regulation No 881/2002 (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), or of Regulation No 1330/2008; and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those acts.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

               2.

               The claim for damages is dismissed.

               3.

               The European Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay those incurred by Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim up to 18 January 2011 in relation to the application for annulment and shall refund to the cashier of the General Court the sums advanced by way of legal aid in that regard.

               4.

               Mr Abdulbasit Abdulrahim shall, in addition to bearing his own costs, pay in their entirety the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the application for annulment, together with those incurred by the Commission after 18 January 2011 in that regard, and pay in their entirety the costs incurred by both of those institutions in relation to the claim for damages.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-18/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux — France) — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et droits indirects (Tax on motor vehicles — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Article 6(2)(b) — Commission decision approving an exemption — No direct effect)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux — France) — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-18/08) (1)

   (Tax on motor vehicles - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Article 6(2)(b) - Commission decision approving an exemption - No direct effect)
   (2009/C 6/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) — Interpretation of Commission Decision 2005/449/EC, concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23) — Whether that decision has direct effect or, as an authorisation decision, requires a measure transposing it into national law?
   Operative part of the judgment
   Commission Decision 2005/449/EC of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures cannot be relied on by an individual against the French Republic, to which that decision was addressed, in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption approved by that decision upon its notification or publication.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-183/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 April 2012 by Chafiq Ayadi against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09: Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/12

         Appeal brought on 18 April 2012 by Chafiq Ayadi against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09: Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission
   (Case C-183/12 P)
   2012/C 194/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:

               —

               the order of the General Court dated 31 January 2012 is quashed

               —

               it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose

               —

               the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application

               —

               The Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs of defending the Commission's application to find the annulment action devoid of purpose before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant raises the following two pleas in law:

               A.

               The General Court erred when it failed to:

                           (a)

                           hear from the Advocate-General and/or

                           (b)

                           invite representations from the Appellant as to whether the oral procedure ought to be opened and/or

                           (c)

                           open the oral procedure on the question as to whether the application to annul was devoid of purpose.

               B.

               The General Court erred in finding that the action for annulment was not capable of conferring material advantage upon the Appellant.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-288/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 October 2004
   in Case C-288/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - Maritime cabotage)
   (2004/C 300/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-288/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 9 August 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and M. Patakia) and Hellenic Republic (Agents: E.-M. Mamouna) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by regarding the Peloponnese as an island and applying to Community cruise liners exceeding 650 gt which carry out island cabotage its national rules as host State on manning conditions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-239/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — RFA International, LP v European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia — Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — RFA International, LP v European Commission
   (Case C-239/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia - Rejection of applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid))
   (2017/C 213/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, advokat, E. Borovikov, avocat, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, P. Němečková and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders RFA International, LP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case C-478/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen
   (Case C-478/15)
   (2016/C 016/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

      Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons of 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), in particular its preamble, Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 16, 21 thereof and Articles 7, 9 and 15 of Annex I thereto, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen with unlimited tax liability in that State is denied the deduction of a tax-free allowance for a part-time teaching activity because that activity is not carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area applies, but is carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in the territory of the Swiss Confederation?


title: Case T-406/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — Gossio v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Misuse of power — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental Rights)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Gossio v Council
   (Case T-406/13) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Misuse of power - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental Rights))
   (2015/C 065/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Ivory Coast) (represented by: S. Zokou, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 95, p. 1), Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 285, p. 28), and Council Implementing Decision 2012/144/CFSP of 8 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/656 (OJ 2012 L 71, p. 50) insofar as they concern the applicant, and, second, of the Council’s decision of 17 May 2013 to maintain the restrictive measures relating to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/271/CFSP of 12 May 2014 implementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 479/2014 of 12 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-91/03: Action brought on 10 March 2003 by SGL Carbon AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/41
—      the adoption of its decision of 9 July 2002. In that                 mitted a further infringement of Article&nbsp:81(1) EC inas-
       respect, the applicants refer to the pleas in law and                much as they had participated, in the period from February
       arguments put forward in Case T-317/02, cited above.1                1993 to November 1996, in agreements and concerted
                                                                            practices in the extruded specialty graphite sector. By the
                                                                            contested decision, the defendant imposed on the applicant a
( 1) See, in particular, Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996        fine of EUR 18.94 million for the isostatically pressed specialty
     concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain       graphite sector and a fine of EUR 8.81 million for the extruded
     substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-           specialty graphite sector.
     agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and
     88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3).
( 2) OJ 2002 L 195, p. 72.
( 3) Case T-317/02 (OJ 2002 C 323, p. 37).                                  The applicant relies on five pleas in law:
                                                                            —     Breach of the principle of non bis in idem and the
                                                                                principle of proportionality. The applicant argues that the
                                                                                defendant infringed the prohibition of double jeopardy
                                                                                inasmuch as it failed to take into consideration in its
                                                                                decision the fines already imposed in North America on
                                                                                the international part of the cartel, and inasmuch as it
Action brought on 10 March 2003 by SGL Carbon AG                                  carried out a second administrative-fine proceeding
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             against, among others, the applicant in the graphite
                                                                                electrode sector. In the alternative, the applicant argues
                            (Case T-91/03)                                        that, even if a second proceeding might have been
                                                                                lawful, the defendant should nevertheless have taken into
                                                                                account the fines already imposed when determining the
                           (2003/C 112/77)                                        amount of the fine.
                     (Language of the case: German)                         —     Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and
                                                                                of the applicant’s rights of defence. The applicant argues
                                                                                that, in its decision, the defendant surprisingly re-evalu-
                                                                                ated the contributions of LCL and the applicant to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         infringement and therefore deprived the applicant of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        opportunity to state its views on this matter adequately
European Communities on 10 March 2003 by SGL Carbon                               during the administrative proceeding. The defendant also
AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and                           appointed case handlers who did not have a sufficient
P. Niggemann, Rechtsanwälte.                                                      command of the German language, with the result that
                                                                                the defendant failed to give full consideration to the
                                                                                applicant’s submissions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements and of
—      annul the contested decision in so far as the applicant is                 the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC
       concerned;                                                                 inasmuch as the defendant took as the basis for its
                                                                                decision incorrect and defective market data.
—      in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the
       fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;
                                                                            —     Infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62/
                                                                                EEC on account of allegedly erroneous determination of
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                the fines. The applicant argues that, in determining the
                                                                                fines, the defendant took account of the gravity of the
                                                                                offence in an inadmissible way, wrongly imputed to the
                                                                                applicant the role of a cartel leader, disregarded the upper
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   limit of penalties, failed to take into consideration the
                                                                                applicant’s ability to pay and the supposed absence of
                                                                                any requirement of a deterrent effect, and failed to give
The applicant manufactures various graphite products, includ-                     due recognition to the applicant’s contributions by way
ing ‘specialty graphite’. The defendant complained that the                       of cooperation.
applicant and other manufacturers and distributors of isostatic
specialty graphite had participated in a continuing agreement
and/or concerted practices which affected the market for
isostatic specialty graphite in the European Community and                  The applicant further claims that the interest imposed on the
the European Economic Area. The alleged infringements relate                fine is unlawful.
primarily to the period from July 1993 to February 1998. In
addition, the defendant also alleged that the applicant and
UCAR, another manufacturer of specialty graphite, had com-


title: Case T-6/09: Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Hansen v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/45

         Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Hansen v Commission
   (Case T-6/09)
   (2009/C 69/100)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bent Hansen (Aarslev, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of 800 000 EUR or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable for past, present and future pain, suffering and diminution of the enjoyment of life from serious impairments to his health resulting from the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring of Directive 96/26 for radiation related illnesses and conditions in the case of former Thule workers;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant or the medical treating facilities or care givers, the future costs of medical treatments and medications to alleviate and/or treat his impaired health, referred to in the first claim above, which are not available to him through the socialized medical system of his Member State;

               —

               order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in bringing the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages he claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged illegal refusal by the Commission to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parliament (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (2) to the case of workers, including the applicant, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule, Greenland.

      (1)  European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (Petition 720/2002) [2006/2012(INI)].

      (2)  OJ L 159, p. 1.