title: Case C-137/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 188/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Does European law require a period of child-rearing under                  Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
German law prior to 1 January 1986 to be taken into account                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
if the child was in fact raised in another Member State (in this
case France) but the parent who brought the child up was
                                                                                (Case C-137/99)
engaged in occupational activity as a cross-border worker
subject to compulsory insurance in the Federal Republic of
Germany until the start of the maternal protection period and                                        (1999/C 188/37)
after the end of her maternity leave as well?
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its legal Service,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth                 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March                      administrative provisions required to comply with Council
1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de                          Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending and
l’Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di                        consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure
                               Siena                                            financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
                                                                                animals and certain animal products and amending Direc-
                                                                                tives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, for the protection of
                         (Case C-136/99)                                        animals during transportation, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
                         (1999/C 188/36)
                                                                           2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the French Conseil                     Pleas in law and main arguments
d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth
Sub-Sections) of 5 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in               The Member States are required by the binding character of
the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l’Economie et               the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena.                          Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
                                                                           into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for
                                                                           that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
The French Conseil d’Etat is asking the Court of Justice to rule           to the Commission. That period expired on 1 July 1997
on the question whether or not the provisions of the Eighth                without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 (1)have                   Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
the effect of granting to taxable persons established in a                 into national law.
Member State of the Community where they are taxed only on
a part of their turnover a right to a partial refund of the tax            (1) OJ No L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
charged in another Member State in respect of goods or
services which they have used in order to carry out, in the
State in which they are established, transactions of which some
are not taxed. If they do, to what method of determining the
portion of refundable tax do those provisions refer, and, in
particular, is that portion to be determined according to the
rules applicable in the State where the taxable person is
established, or according to the rules in force in the State
required to make the refund?                                               Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on
    the harmonisation of the 1aws of the Member States relating to                                   (Case C-138/99)
    turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax
    to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country
    (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).                                                                          (1999/C 188/38)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-490/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Arnoldo Mondadori Editore v OHIM — Grazia Equity (GRAZIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GRAZIA — Earlier national figurative mark GRAZIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of similarity between the goods — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Reputation — No link between the marks at issue)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Arnoldo Mondadori Editore v OHIM — Grazia Equity (GRAZIA)
      (Case T-490/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GRAZIA - Earlier national figurative mark GRAZIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of similarity between the goods - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Reputation - No link between the marks at issue))
      (2014/C 395/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti, R. Valenti and S. Balice, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening between the General Court: Grazia Equity GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1958/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA and Grazia Equity GmbH.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case F-72/14: Action brought on 23 July 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/29

         Action brought on 23 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-72/14)
   2014/C 388/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board of the competition not to admit the applicant to internal competition COM/3/AD 9/13 because she was not a ‘member of the temporary staff of the Commission’ which is a condition for eligibility.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 18 September 2013, confirmed on 22 October 2013, not to admit the applicant to competition COM/3/AD 9/13;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision dated 11 April 2014 and served on the applicant on 14 April 2014 rejecting the claim of 17 December 2013;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-218/09: Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Italy v Commission and EPSO

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/59

         Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Italy v Commission and EPSO
   (Case T-218/09)
   2009/C 180/109
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the notice of admission tests and notice of open competition EPSO/AST/91/09 to form a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field;

               —

               annul the notice of admission tests and notice of open competition EPSO/AST/92/09 to form a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges the notices of open competition referred to above in so far as some of the tests that are required to be taken must necessarily be taken in German, English of French.
   In support of its challenge, the Italian Republic relies on forward the following grounds:

               —

               infringement of Article 290 EC, which confers exclusive competence on the Council, acting unanimously, to determine the rules governing the languages of Community acts. The applicant submits in that connection that in the case at issue EPSO effectively assumed the role of the Council in determining the rules governing the languages of the two competitions by requiring that, as a second language and as the language in which the admission tests, two out of three of the written tests and the oral tests were to be taken, the candidates were obliged to choose between English, French and German, all the other languages of the Member States being excluded;

               —

               infringement of Article 12 EC, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 (1) and Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. It is submitted in this regard that all the national languages of the Member States have the status of official languages and working languages of European Union. A notice of open competition cannot therefore arbitrarily limit to just three the languages which candidates may choose from as a second language and as the language in which correspondence and the competition tests will be conducted. Moreover, Article 28 of the Staff Regulations requires candidates to have knowledge of a second Community language in addition to their own national language and does not confer any special status on English, French or German.

         Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 253 EC and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation.

      (1)  Regulation No 1determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special Edition, 1952-1958, p. 59)


title: Case T-171/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (European Refugee Fund — Action to raise awareness and disseminate information concerning refugees who are victims of psychological trauma — ‘Traumatised refugees in the European Union: institutions, protection mechanisms and good practice’ project — Payment of the balance — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Error of assessment)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-171/08) (1)

   (European Refugee Fund - Action to raise awareness and disseminate information concerning refugees who are victims of psychological trauma - ‘Traumatised refugees in the European Union: institutions, protection mechanisms and good practice’ project - Payment of the balance - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Error of assessment)
   2014/C 39/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially U. Claus, then C. Otto, S. Reichmann and L.-J. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially S. Grünheid and B. Simon, then S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision, enclosed in the letter of 7 March 2008, concerning the Commission’s partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by the applicant in the context of Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073 relating to Community financing of an action to raise awareness and disseminate information concerning refugees who are victims of psychological trauma.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismissses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Siderca SAIC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-8/98)

text:
C 72/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     30 July 1997,                                                  relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                    Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Siderca SAIC
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-8/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 72/55)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                           (Language of the case: English)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
                                                                    by Siderca SAIC, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC and
                                                                    Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31,
                                                                    Grand'Rue.
Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Autotrasporti di
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Viola Claudio & C. SNC against the Commission of the
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-6/98)                              Ð annul in whole or in part the Commission's Decision
                                                                         of 6 October 1997 addressed to Siderca SAIC,
                          (98/C 72/54)
                                                                    Ð take such other or further action as justice may
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          require, and
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
by Autotrasporti di Viola Claudio & C. SNC, represented             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Claudio Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for
service at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
                                                                    The shares in the applicant's company, a major Argentine
                                                                    manufacturer of oil company tubular goods and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         mechanical pipe and tube, are ultimately held by the
                                                                    holding company San Faustin NV. The applicant acquired
                                                                    in 1993, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, a 27 % (later
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                     increased to 30 %) interest in Tubos de Acero de Mexico
     30 July 1997,                                                  SA (TAMSA), Mexico's only producers of oil company
                                                                    tubular goods.
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            Dalmine (1) is a former subsidiary of the Italian State steel
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           company Ilva, and manufactures a wide range of pipe and
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         tube products. The applicant holds, via a wholly owned
     was paid,                                                      subsidiary, 47 % of the shares in Dalmine, in which it
                                                                    acquired an interest in 1996. The defendant is
                                                                    investigating allegations of a cartel among EU steel pipe
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                and tube producers going back to the early 1980s and the
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  possibility that, in addition to the core of European
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 72/25
producers, there was a degree of participation or                 Convention on Human Rights under the European rule of
knowledge on the part of third-country producers, notably         law; the proceedings leading up to the contested decision
in Japan and Latin America.                                       were not so conducted.
                                                                  Finally, the applicant maintains that the inadequate
The contested decision, addressed to Dalmine, the Techint        reasoning of the contested decision and the ineffective
Group' and the applicant (c/o Dalmine'), ordered the             notification of that decision to the applicant constitute
addressees to answer certain questions appended to that           independent and additional grounds for annulment on the
decision within 30 days from the date of its notification.        basis of Articles 190 and 191 of the EC Treaty.
The decision imposed on each of the addressees a penalty
of ECU 1 000 for each day of delay in providing the
information requested.                                            (1) Case T-596/97 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
The applicant points out that the contested decision refers
several times to the Techint Group', which is one of the
addressees of that decision. However, the Techint Group'
is no more than a name used to designate various                  Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Mitteldeutsche
companies engaged in different businesses and having in           Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER) against the Commission
common the fact that some or all of their shares are                              of the European Communities
ultimately owned by San Faustin NV. It is not a legal
                                                                                (Case T-9/98)
entity. No company bearing the Techint' name is engaged
in the manufacture of steel pipes.                                                          (98/C 72/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant submits that the defendant, by adopting the
contested decision, has sought to exercise its enforcement
jurisdiction extraterritorially. Public international law         An action against the Commission of the European
recognises and respects the separation between the legal          Communities was brought before the Court of First
personality of a corporation and that of its owners and           Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
between a subsidiary and its parent. The decision, by             by Mitteldeutsche Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER),
asserting jurisdiction over a parent company by virtue of         whose registered office is at Spergau, Germany,
its 47 % shareholding in a European company, violates             represented by Michael Schütte and Martina Maier,
this principle. The defendant does not have the power to          Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for service in
take action against a third-country company merely                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn and
because the company owns shares in a European affiliate.          Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Furthermore, the defendant infringed Article 11(5) of
Regulation No 17/62 because it lacked jurisdiction to
address to the applicant a mandatory request for
information; it also infringed Articles 15(5) and 16(1)(c)        Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 3136 final of
of that regulation. As the defendant did not have                      1 October 1997 in so far as it affects the applicant,
jurisdiction to request information from the applicant, it             and especially in so far as it holds the application of
follows that it likewise lacked jurisdiction to impose a               Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz (Annual Tax
penalty of ECU 1 000 per day and that did so in breach of              Law) 1996 to the applicant's project to be
Article 16(1)(c).                                                      incompatible with the common market and requires
                                                                       the aids paid to the applicant pursuant to that
                                                                       provision to be repaid,
As the imposition of periodic penalty payments on the
applicant must be annulled for lack of competence, in             Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
breach of Article 16(1)(c), this circumstance alone would
also constitute sufficient ground for declaring void the
collective imposition of those payments on Dalmine. The           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decision should be annulled because it violated the
applicant's fundamental procedural right to remain silent
without self-incrimination in the face of what were               The applicant, and indirect subsidiary of Elf Aquitaine SA,
effectively criminal charges. An investigation by the             Paris, was incorporated for the purpose of establishing a
defendant under Regulation No 17/62 into suspected                new refinery at Leuna (in the Bundesland of Saxony-
infringements must be conducted in accordance with the            Anhalt). The total amount of the investment was to be in
fair procedures guaranteed by Article 6 of the European           the area of DM 4,88 billion. In order to make that


title: Case C-134/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța, Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea v Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța, Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea v Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central
   (Case C-134/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Validity of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   2012/C 303/18
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanța

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

      Respondent: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanța — Interpretation of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Admissibility of national legislation imposing salary reductions on a number of categories of civil servants — Infringement of the right of property and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction with regard to the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania), made by decision of 8 February 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case C-226/05: Action brought on 20 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/11

         Action brought on 20 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-226/05)
   (2005/C 171/19)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dr Bernhard Schima, acting as Agent with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligation to completely implement Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1) in that

                           —

                           contrary to Article 24(1), it has failed to enact any provisions to implement the directive as regards the Federal Government's law on mineral raw materials, its law on blasting supplies and explosives and the law of the Land of Salzburg relating to electricity production;

                           —

                           it has failed to implement Article 11 as regards external emergency plans in the Länder of Burgenland, Salzburg, Styria and Tyrol;

                           —

                           it has failed to implement Article 12 of the directive in the Land of Upper Austria;

                           —

                           it has failed to implement Article 8(2)(b) of the directive in the Länder of Burgenland, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Tyrol and Vorarlberg;

                     or that the Republic of Austria has failed to inform the Commission of any implementing measures in all these instances;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to Article 24(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the directive should be implemented in national law by the Member States not later than 24 months after its entry into force, that is to say, by 3 February 1999. The implementation of the directive in Austria rests partly with the Federal Government and partly with the Länder.
   The Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the directive in the Republic of Austria is incomplete or insufficient: there are gaps as regards implementation in areas of importance and the implementing measures partly fall short of the requirements of the directive.
   At the Federal law level, implementation in the areas of the law on mineral raw materials and the law on blasting supplies and explosives is still outstanding. At the level of the Länder, implementation of the directive in the area of the Salzburg law relating to electricity production is still outstanding.
   Article 11(1) of the directive — the drawing up of an external emergency plan for measures to be taken outside the establishment — has not been implemented in the Länder of Burgenland, Salzburg, Styria and Tyrol.
   Article 12 of the directive lays a duty on Member States to take the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents into account in their land-use policies and/or other relevant policies. Member States have a duty to control the siting of new establishments and to set up appropriate consultation procedures to facilitate the implementation of the policies. However, the Commission has received no implementing measure in respect of Article 12 for the Land of Upper Austria.
   With regard to the so-called ‘domino effect’ establishments, Article 8(2)(b) of the directive requires Member States to make provision for cooperation in informing the public and in supplying information to the competent authority for the preparation of external emergency plans. This provision has not, as yet, been implemented in the Länder of Burgenland, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Tyrol and Vorarlberg.

      (1)  OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.


title: Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-294/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         I EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/7
may not be added to the ' Register of protected                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
designations'.                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
(•') OJ No L 184, 27 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .                                   — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
                                                                                dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                          ( SAVE )( 1 ) and, in any event, by not communicating
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of
                                  Belgium                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                Directive,
                            Case C-294/96 )
                             ( 96/C 318/ 12 )                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                           put forward in Case C-294/96 ( 2 ); the period prescribed by
                                                                           the Directive expired on 31 December 1994 .
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                           (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p. 28 .
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                    ( 2 ) See page 7 of this ed . Official Journal .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty by not adopting                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli — by
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal
      Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola
      concerning medical devices ('),                                                                ( Case C-296/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/ 14 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                           Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189                ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of
of the EC Treaty places Member States to whom Directives                   9 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
are addressed under an obligation to adopt the measures                    9 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
necessary to comply with those Directives within the time                  proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola on questions
limits set therein for their implementation. In the present                identical to those submitted in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
case, when the period prescribed by Directive 93/42/EEC                    C-75/95 ( 1 ).
expired on 1 July 1994 , the Kingdom of Belgium had not
adopted the necessary measures .                                           (') See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
 (') OJ No L 169 , 12 . 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
                                                                           Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                    of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                                              Officer
                                  Belgium                                                            ( Case C-297/96 )
                            Case C-295 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/15 )
                              ( 96/C 318 / 13 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by decision of a Social Security
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Commissioner, of 2 September 1996 , which was received at
 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                        the Court Registry on 1 1 September 1996 , for a preliminary
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                          ruling in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for               Adjudication Officer, on the following question :


title: Case T-65/12 P: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Strack v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Order of referral — Decision which cannot be the object of an appeal — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/22

         Order of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-65/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Order of referral - Decision which cannot be the object of an appeal - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 227/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission (not published in the ECR), and seeking that that order be quashed.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Guido Strack is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Action brought on 12 May 1995 by the Portuguese Republic against the European Commission (Case C-150/95)

text:
No C 208/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
Under Community case-law, the applicant associations                          seed , colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95
were individually concerned by the contested decision, since                  marketing year (*);
the capacity to negotiate in Community matters in relation
to a given policy constitutes sufficient capacity for an                ( b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
association representing a category of persons to challenge a
Community decision which is not addressed to it
individually but which concerns that policy.                            Contentions       and principal      arguments     adduced       in
                                                                        support:
I 1 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 8 .
                                                                        — As regards the reduction by 20 % of the amount of the
                                                                            compensatory payment to be made to the Portuguese
                                                                             producers of sunflower seeds (Annex I, II ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            contested Regulation ): miscalculation of the overshoot
                                                                             of the maximum guaranteed area ( MGA ) by the
                                                                             Portuguese producers of sunflower seeds:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Toulouse Police
Court by order of that court of 4 April 1995 in the case of                 — The reduction of the basic EC-12 area resulting from
            Ministere Public v. Jean-Louis Maurin                                set-aside was not applicable to the Portuguese
                         ( Case C-144/95 )                                       producers who, in the 1994/95 marketing year,
                            ( 95/C 208/03 )                                      qualified for different treatment, as prescribed by the
                                                                                Act of Accession . Thus, the overshoot by the
                                                                                Portuguese producers of the MGA for the growing of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           sunflower seeds should have been determined by the
European Communities by an order of the Toulouse Police                          Commission by reference to the MGA of 122 000
Court of 4 April 1995 , which was lodged at the Court                            hectares and not by the method adopted by the
Registry on 10 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                        Commission, namely on the basis of that area subject
case of Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v.                       to a deduction of 15 % in respect of set-aside .
Jean-Louis Maurin on the following question :
                                                                             — In any event, the Commission miscalculated the area
Is the procedure for establishing whether an offence has                         on which, in that marketing year, the Portuguese
been committed , as laid down by the Law of 1 August 1905                        producers could grow sunflowers without being
on frauds and falsifications relating to products or services                    penalized . Under the Blair House Agreement, which
concerning the labelling and presentation of food products,                      was transposed into Community legislation, the area
and, more particularly, the fact that a report is not signed by                  within the Community territory sown by small
the person concerned by an investigation, compatible with                        producers cannot be taken into account by the
 the general principles of law elicited by the Court of Justice,                 Commission in calculating the overshoot of the
such as observance of the rights of the defence and of the                       National Reference Areas : account should be taken
adversarial nature of proceedings ?                                              only of the area cultivated by producers operating
                                                                                under the general regime ('professional' producers ).
                                                                                Since the Portuguese 'professional ' producers
                                                                                cultivated 103 875 hectares rather than the 103 700
                                                                                hectares ( 122 000 less 15 % in respect of set-aside )
                                                                                which could be cultivated without penalty, there was
                                                                                practically no overshoot of the MGA.
 Action brought on 12 May 1995 by the Portuguese Republic
              against the European Commission
                                                                             — Even if the Commission had grounds for not
                          ( Case C-l 50/95 )
                                                                                excluding the areas sown by small producers from
                             ( 95/C 208/04 )                                     the calculation of the overshoot of the MGA
                                                                                attributed to Portugal in respect of the cultivation of
                                                                                sunflowers, it was incumbent on the Commission to
 An action against the European Commission was brought                           deduct from the MGA an area of 21 397 hectares,
 before the Court of Justice on 12 May 1995 by the
                                                                                that is to say the area actually farmed by small
 Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao de Mota                             producers exempted from the set-aside requirement,
 Campos and Dr Luis Ines Fernandes, acting as agents, with                       in order to determine such area as might be subject to
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese                          set-aside . Thus, the maximum level of the penalty to
 Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                                                                                which the Portuguese producers could as a whole
                                                                                have been liable is 17% rather than the 20%
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    calculated by the Commission.
 (a ) declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC )                      — The applicant expressly alleges that the provisions of
       No 307/95 establishing corrected final regional                            Council Regulations (EEC ) No 1765/92 ( 2 ) and
       reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape                        (EEC ) No 232/94 ( 3 ) are illegal for breach of the
 ---pagebreak---   12 . 8 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/3
           EEC/USA agreement concluded under GATT, if it is              Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           found that the contested Regulation is based on               Belgium against the Commission of the European
           those provisions .                                                                         Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-155/95 )
  — As regards the improper exclusion of the overshoot of                                            ( 95/C 208/06 )
       the MGA by the Portuguese producers from the
       calculation of the overall overshoot of the Specific Basic
       Area allocated to the Community as a whole :                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       — The exclusion of Portugal from the benefit of                   European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           weighting of the overshoot of the Specific Base Area          Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
           in the Community as a whole has no basis in Article           Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
           5 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 , as            Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
           amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 232/94 which                 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
           applied the Blair House Agreement within the                  Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
           Community; it infringes Article 6 of that agreement;
           it also contravenes the principle of equality as
           between the Member States regarding enjoyment of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the benefits deriving from Community legislation,
           according to which no exclusion of any of them is             — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 479/95 of
           justified; and the exclusion is discriminatory in that it           1 March 1995 introducing transitional measures for the
           is based on the nationality of certain producers .                  application of the tariff quota arrangements for the
                                                                               import of bananas as a result of the accession of Austria,
  (•) OJ No L 36 , 16 . 2 . 1995 , p . 2 .                                     Finland and Sweden for the second quarter of 1995 and
  (2 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12,                                     order the Commission to pay the costs ( x ).
  (•') OJ No L 30, 3 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         the same as those relied on against Regulation ( EC )
                                                                         No 3303/94 in Case C-71 /95 ( 2 ).
                                                                         (») OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 18 .
  References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                   ( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by
  orders of that court of 25 March 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April
  1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995 ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995
  ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995 ( C-176/95 ) in the criminal
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and
                           Armando Scrocca
  ( Cases C-154/95 , C-157/95 , C-174/95 , C-175/95 and
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                C-176/95 )
                                                                         Belgium against the Commission of the European
                             ( 95/C 208/05 )                                                          Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-156/95 )
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 208/07 )
  European Communities by orders of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distraccata di Tivoli ( Rome
  District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 25 March             An action against the Commission of the European
  1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
  ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995 ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995               European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
  ( C-176/95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on             Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Flead of Department
  15 May 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 19 May 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 6 June             at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
  1995 ( C-174/95 and C-175/95 ) and 7 June 1995                         Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an address
  ( C-176/95 ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                 for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro                  Girondins .
£
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli     .
                                                               and
  Armando Scrocca on questions which are identical with
  those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-151/95 (*).                   The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995 on the
  (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                         exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                         quota for imports of bananas during the first quarter of
                                                                          1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie (*) and order the
                                                                          Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case C-595/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2015 by National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2015 in Case T-577/12 NIOC and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/3

         Appeal brought on 14 November 2015 by National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2015 in Case T-577/12 NIOC and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-595/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants:

   National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC), Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings:

   Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered on 4 September 2015 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-577/12;

               —

               grant the appellants the form of order sought in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By their first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal when it ruled that, by referring to Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2) must be regarded as having clearly stated that its legal basis is constituted by the aforementioned Article 46(2).

               2.

               By their second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal, which can be summed up by the statement that ‘it is not apparent from Article 215(2) TFEU that individual restrictive measures taken against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities must be adopted according to the procedure laid down in Article 215(1) TFEU’. First, Article 215(1) TFEU, the only provision of the FEU Treaty dealing with restrictive measures, lays down clearly that the procedure applicable with respect to such measures is that provided for in that article, and does not provide for any other; secondly, Article 291 TFEU is incompatible with Article 215(2) TFEU; alternatively, Article 291(2) TFEU cannot be regarded as being capable of providing the Council with an additional legal basis for the adoption of restrictive measures over and above that constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU; lastly, and alternatively, even if it is held that Article 291(2) TFEU is capable of providing the Council with an additional legal basis for the adoption of restrictive measures over and above that constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU, the recourse to that legal basis is none the less unlawful in the present case.

               3.

               By their third ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adopting restrictive measures initially based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when it ruled, in essence, in paragraphs 75 to 83 of its judgment, that the Council of the European Union, in the words of Article 291(2), ‘duly justified’ the recourse to that derogating procedure, which was the only one available in this case. First, the requisite justification must be explicit; secondly, even if an implicit justification is capable of satisfying that requirement, it is not fulfilled in this case, since the General Court misinterpreted the legislation concerned.

               4.

               By their fourth ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adoption of restrictive measures that is based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when it ruled, in paragraph 87 of its judgment, that Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 reserves to the Council ‘the power to implement Article 23(2) and (3) of that regulation’, which suffices to fulfil the obligation to state reasons concerning the statement of the legal basis of that provision, which is Article 291(2) TFEU. According to the appellants, the General Court came to that conclusion as a result of a legally flawed interpretation of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012.

               5.

               By their fifth ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adopting restrictive measures based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellants submit that the General Court erred, in paragraphs 86 to 88 of its judgment, when it found that the obligation to state reasons for legal acts of the European Union did not oblige the Council to state expressly that Regulation No 267/2012 was based on Article 291(2) TFEU, as far as concerns the legal basis of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012.

               6.

               By their sixth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when it ruled, in paragraphs 100 and 103 and also in paragraphs 108 and 110, that the consistency of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union with the principles of legal certainty and of foreseeability of the law, from which it follows that those measures must be clear and precise, is to be verified in the light of the rules of the case-law as to the uniform interpretation of acts of the European Union, which require that those acts be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages.

               7.

               By their seventh ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in paragraph 134 of its judgment when it ruled that Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (the criterion at issue) is compatible with the principles of the rule of law and more generally with EU law, since it is ‘neither arbitrary nor discretionary’, and, in paragraph 140 of its judgment, that ‘the criterion at issue limits the Council’s discretion, by establishing objective criteria, and guarantees the degree of foreseeability required by EU law’. In that regard, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by interpreting the criterion at issue by reference to the judgment of 13 March 2012 in Melli Bank v Council (C-380/09 P).

               8.

               By their eighth ground of appeal, in the alternative, the appellants submit that, on the assumption that the meaning to be given to the term ‘association’ is that given to it by the General Court, it must be held that it has been applied incorrectly in this case.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282 p. 16).


title: Case C-397/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Capital companies — Directive 69/335/EEC — Articles 2(1) and (3), 4(1) and 7 — Capital duty — Exemption — Conditions — Transfer of effective centre of management or of registered office from one Member State to another Member State — Capital duty on the capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in a Member State by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in another Member State)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-397/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital companies - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 2(1) and (3), 4(1) and 7 - Capital duty - Exemption - Conditions - Transfer of effective centre of management or of registered office from one Member State to another Member State - Capital duty on the capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in a Member State by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in another Member State)
   2009/C 205/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 June 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transfer of the registered office of a company — National law providing for the taxation of a transfer of registered office to the extent that the company involved is not subject to capital duty in the Member State of origin — Conditions for application of obligatory exemptions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by making the exemption from capital duty for the transactions referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973, Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 96 of the second additional provision of the consolidated version of the Spanish Law on corporation tax (Disposición Adicional Segunda del texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades), enacted by Royal Legislative Decree No 4/2004 of 5 March 2004;

                           —

                           by subjecting to capital duty the transfer, from a Member State to Spain, of the effective centre of management or the registered office of capital companies which have not been subject to a similar tax in their country of origin, and

                           —

                           by subjecting to capital duty capital allocated to commercial activities pursued in Spain by branches or permanent establishments of companies established in a Member State which does not apply a similar tax,
                           the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335, as amended by Directives 73/79, 73/80 and 85/303;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-300/01: Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against European Investment Bank

text:
C 44/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola                       —     implied refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in that
              against European Investment Bank                                   it was only by letter of 13 June 2001 that the President
                                                                                of the EIB informed the applicant of the misconduct and
                                                                                infringements alleged against him, dating back to 1998.
                          (Case T-300/01)                                        Such delay moreover is in breach of the employee’s rights
                                                                                of defence;
                           (2002/C 44/43)                                  —     that the Disciplinary Board was irregularly constituted.
                                                                                The applicant claims in that respect that Article 40 of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it does not
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              provide in any event for the substitution of the Head of
                                                                                Personnel, despite the existence of a dispute between him
                                                                                and the applicant, and inasmuch as there is no provision
                                                                                requiring a quorum of 4 voting members;
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought                 —     infringement of the procedure provided for in Article 40
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   of the Staff Regulations;
on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi
Isola, lawyer.                                                             —     irregularity of the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001,
                                                                                inasmuch as such dismissal is not provided for by any
                                                                                Community or other provision, and it was moreover
                                                                                intimated by the Director of the Rome office, whereas the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Staff Regulations accords this power only to the President
                                                                                of the EIB;
—     annul the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001 notified
      to the applicant by Thomas Beckett, the director of the              —     irregularity of the dismissal of 12 September 2001. The
      Rome office, the subsequent dismissal served on the                        applicant points out in that respect that the misconduct
      applicant by letter received on 12 September 2001,                         leading to the disciplinary measure is certainly not held
      signed by the President of the European Investment                         to be serious since the President, by virtue of Article 39
      Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, together with all other                     of the Staff Regulations, could have immediately sus-
      consequent and related acts, including necessarily certain                 pended the official. Furthermore, the defendant made
      articles of the Staff Regulations and the Code of Conduct,                 hardly any mention of specific times and places nor
      in so far as the latter applies to the applicant;                          adduced evidence of the misconduct but instead sought
                                                                                to dismiss him for failure to cooperate during the
                                                                                disciplinary proceedings despite his never having been
—     order the EIB to reinstate the applicant, restore his career               accused of such failure.
      as from February 1999 and pay the remuneration due to
      him in the meantime (together with interest) and pay the
      costs of the proceedings and damages in the terms set out            (1) Judgment of 23 February 2001 ECR-SC 2001 I-A-49, II-185.
      below and to be further expounded in the course of                   (2) OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30.
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Alitalia —
                                                                           Linee aeree italiane S.p.A. against the Commission of the
The applicant in the present action, who is challenging his                                    European Communities
dismissal by the defendant and the facts surrounding it, is the
same one as in T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v
EIB (1) and T-120/01 De Nicola v EIB (2).                                                           (Case T-301/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/44)
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     that the Code of Conduct does not apply to him,
      inasmuch as it is a unilateral act drawn up and issued
      solely by the employer, not being required by the
      individual contract of employment or by the Staff Regu-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      lations;                                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-759/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/49

         Action brought on 29 December 2015 — Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
   (Case T-759/15)
   (2016/C 059/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (FCFE) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Rodriguez, Solicitor, M. Engel and G. Maisto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision dated 21 October 2015 addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (‘Luxembourg’) in case SA.38375 (2914/C ex 2014 NN) (‘Contested Decision’);

               —

               order the Commission to pay FCFE’s 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 that the contested decision breaches Article 107 TFEU because the Commission has misapplied the concept of ‘selective advantage’ and failed to show that the APA is liable to distort competition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 296(2) TFEU and its duty to state reasons through its failure to explain how it derives the arm’s length principle from Union law, or even what the principle is and through its superficial description of the APA’s effect on competition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of legal certainty since the Commission’s novel formulation of the arm’s length principle introduces complete uncertainty and confusion as to when an advance pricing agreement, and indeed any transfer pricing analysis might breach EU state aid rules.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of legitimate expectations since the Commission has created a legitimate expectation that for state aid purposes it assesses transfer pricing arrangements on the basis of the OECD Guidelines and its sudden departure from this has breached the principle of legitimate expectations.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-438/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras): Maria Luisa Jiménez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios (Protection of pregnant women — Directive 92/85/EEC — Article 10 — Direct effect and scope — Dismissal — Fixed-term contract of employment)

text:
C 331/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.11.2001
               JUDGMENT OF OF THE COURT                                           constructies met betrekking tot onroerende zaken (Law to
                                                                                prevent artificial arrangements relating to immovable property)
                                                                                of 18 December 1995, whereby classification as a ‘supply of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                        goods’ of the grant, transfer, modification, waiver or termination
                                                                                of rights in rem in immovable property is made subject to the
                                                                                condition that the total considerations, plus turnover tax, must
                         of 4 October 2001                                        amount to at least the economic value of the immovable
                                                                                property to which those rights in rem relate.
in Case C-326/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   2.    On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) and C(a) of
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’                            Directive 77/388/EEC, it does not preclude adoption of a
               v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)                               national provision such as Article 11(1)(b), point 5, of the
                                                                                VAT Law of 28 June 1968, as amended by the Law of
                                                                                18 December 1995, which, for the purposes of the application
                                                                                of the exemption from value added tax, allows the grant, for an
(Sixth VAT Directive — Power of a Member State to treat                           agreed period and for payment, of a right in rem entitling the
certain rights in rem in immovable property as tangible
                                                                                holder to use immovable property, such as the usufructuary
property capable of supply — Restriction of the exercise of                       right in question in the present case, to be treated as the leasing
that power to cases where the price of the right in rem is at
                                                                                or letting of immovable property.
least equal to the economic value of the property concerned —
Letting and leasing of immovable property — Exemptions)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                           (2001/C 331/05)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 4 October 2001
In Case C-326/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der                   in Case C-438/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) (Nether-                     the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras): Maria Luisa
lands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                      Jiménez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios (1)
before that court between Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ and Staats-
secretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation of Article 5(3)
and Article 13B(b) and C(a) of the Sixth Council Directive                  (Protection of pregnant women — Directive 92/85/EEC —
(77/338/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                     Article 10 — Direct effect and scope — Dismissal — Fixed-
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                         term contract of employment)
Common system of value added tax; uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: A. La                                              (2001/C 331/06)
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth
      Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            In Case C-438/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      turnover tax — Common system of value added tax: uniform              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Juzgado de lo
      basis of assessment, it does not preclude adoption of a national      Social Único de Algeciras (Social Court, Algeciras), (Spain) for
      provision, such as Article 3(2) of the Wet houdende vervanging        a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      van de bestaande omzetbelasting door een omzetbelasting               court between Maria Luisa Jiménez Melgar and Ayuntamiento
      volgens het stelsel van heffing over de toegevoegde waarde (Law       de Los Barrios — on the interpretation of Article 10 of Council
      replacing turnover tax by the system of taxing added value) of        Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction
      28 June 1968, as amended by the Wet ter bestrijding van               of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 331/5
health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — the Court, composed                                              (Sixth Chamber)
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                       of 2 October 2001
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October
2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            in Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank v Michel
                                                                                Hautem (1)
1.   Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October
     1992, on the introduction of measures to encourage improve-
     ments in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and         (Appeal — Members of the staff of the European Investment
     workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (10th       Bank — Dismissal — Interpretation of the Staff Regulations
     individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of            of the European Investment Bank — Plea alleging mistaken
     Directive 89/391/EEC), has direct affect and is to be interpreted      characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error
     to the effect that, in the absence of transposition measures taken     in the statement of reasons — Alleged infringement of
     by a Member State within the period prescribed by that                 the rules applicable to relations between the European
     Directive, it confers on individuals rights on which they may                           Investment Bank and its staff)
     rely before a national court against the authorities of that State.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/07)
2.   In allowing derogations from the prohibition of dismissal of
     pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or
     workers who are breast feeding in cases ‘not connected with
     their condition which are permitted under national legislation                             (Language of the case: French)
     and/or practice’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, does
     not require the Member States to specify the particular grounds
     on which such workers may be dismissed.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
3.   Whilst the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 10
     of Directive 92/85/EEC applies to both employment contracts
     for an indefinite period and fixed-term contracts, non-renewal
     of such a contract, when it comes to an end as stipulated,
     cannot be regarded as a dismissal prohibited by that provision.        In Case C-449/99 P: European Investment Bank (Agent:
                                                                            G. Marchegiani, assisted by G. Vandersanden) appeal against
     However, where non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is
     motivated by the worker’s state of pregnancy, it constitutes           the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
     direct discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 2(1)
                                                                            T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897,
     and 3(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
     1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment         seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: Michel Hautem, a member of the
     for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
                                                                            staff of the European Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler
     training and promotion, and working conditions.
                                                                            (Luxembourg) (Avocats: M. Karp and J. Choucroun) — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
4.   In providing that the dismissal of a pregnant worker, of a             of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
     worker who has recently given birth or of a worker who is              R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
     breastfeeding may take place, in exceptional cases ‘and, where         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
     applicable, provided that competent authority has given its            2001, in which it:
     consent’, Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC is not to be
     interpreted as imposing on Member States any obligation to
     have a national authority, having found that there is an               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
     exceptional case justifying the dismissal of a pregnant worker,
     give its consent prior to the employer’s decision to dismiss the
     worker.                                                                2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T-187/03 Isabella Scippacercola v Commission of the European Communities (Access to documents of the institutions — Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/32

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 17 March 2005
   in Case T-187/03 Isabella Scippacercola v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Access to documents of the institutions - Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)
   (2005/C 143/61)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-187/03: Isabella Scippacercola, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented initially by K. Adamantopoulos and D. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos and B. Keane, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg) - application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 March 2003 rejecting the application made by the applicant for access to a document relating to the project for the new Athens International Airport at Spata (Greece) Ä the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and O. Czúcz, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-79/10: Action brought on 22 February 2010 — COLT Télécommunications France SAS v European Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/56

         Action brought on 22 February 2010 — COLT Télécommunications France SAS v European Commission
   (Case T-79/10)
   2010/C 113/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: COLT Télécommunications France SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Deboux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Pursuant to the measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry under Article 49, 64 and 65 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, order the Commission to make available certain documents, referred to in Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 Final (State aid N 331/2008 — France);

               —

               Annul the decision in so far as it found that the ‘measure notified does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC’;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 Final of 30 September 2009 declaring that the compensation for the costs of providing a public service in the amount of EUR 59 million, granted by the French authorities to a group of undertakings for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network (project THD 92) in the Hauts-de-Seine department does not constitute State aid.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward a single plea based on the failure by the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treating on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). That plea is broken down into seven parts.

               —

               The first part of the plea is based on the finding that the particularly long period of time spent on investigating the case (15 months) is in itself an indicator of the complexity of the issues and the need to open a formal investigation procedure.

               —

               In the second part of the plea, the applicant states that the two-phase schedule for rolling out the network should have led the Commission to find at least that the first phase of rolling-out of the network, concentrated in very dense and profitable areas, did not require any public subsidies.

               —

               The third part of the plea aims to establish that the methodological approach taken in the decision to define alleged ‘non-profitable areas’ is very questionable and contradicts the findings of the ARCEP (the French sectoral regulator); those contradictions and methodological errors should have led to the opening of an in-depth investigative phase.

               —

               The fourth part of the plea is based on the numerous, substantiated objections put forward by competing operators, which also should have led the Commission to open an in-depth investigative phase.

               —

               In the fifth part, the applicant states that the Commission did not even make a minimum check to ensure that the French authorities had not made a manifest error of assessment in creating an alleged service of general economic interest, particularly since there was no market deficiency.

               —

               The sixth part also relates to the lack of even minimal verification of whether there was a manifest error of assessment made by the French authorities in the creation of the service of general economic interest, particularly given the lack of specifics as to the planned public involvement.

               —

               Lastly, in the seventh part of the plea, the applicant submits that the decision did not take account of the real risk of over-compensation for the alleged additional costs linked to the alleged public service obligations.