title: Case T-587/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bananas — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Information exchange system — Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object — Causal link between the collusion and the conduct of the undertakings on the market — Single infringement — Imputation of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Cooperation — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission
   (Case T-587/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Information exchange system - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Causal link between the collusion and the conduct of the undertakings on the market - Single infringement - Imputation of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Cooperation - Mitigating circumstances)
   2013/C 123/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially B. Meyring, lawyer, and E. Verghese, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Meyring)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Kellerbauer, A. Biolan and X. Lewis, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, A. Biolan and P. Van Nuffel, Agents,)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Rinne, lawyer, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors, and C. Vajda QC)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed under Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) at EUR 8.82 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-101/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Martinez-Mongay v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Martinez-Mongay v Commission
   (Case T-101/04) (1)

   (2008/C 197/63)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Case T-269/00 Baglioni Hotels SpA and Sagar Srl v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid — National procedure for repayment precluded — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Case T-269/00 Baglioni Hotels SpA and Sagar Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 155/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-269/00: Baglioni Hotels SpA and Sagar Srl, established in Venice (Italy), represented by A. Vianello, M. Merola and M. Pappalardo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Baglioni Hotels SpA.

               2.

               Baglioni Hotels SpA shall bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Baglioni Hotels SpA.

               4.

               The Italian Republic shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Baglioni Hotels SpA.

               5.

               The remainder of the costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-18/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Article 1 — Maritime transport — Ports of general interest — Harbour dues — Exemptions and subsidies)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-18/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Article 1 - Maritime transport - Ports of general interest - Harbour dues - Exemptions and subsidies)
   2010/C 80/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Infringement of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) — Ports of general interest — Subsidies and exemptions from harbour dues

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) of Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest, which establishes a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case F-2/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Matos Martins v Commission (Staff case — Members of the contract staff — Call for expression of interest — Selection procedure — Pre-selection tests — Access to documents)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Matos Martins v Commission
   (Case F-2/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Members of the contract staff - Call for expression of interest - Selection procedure - Pre-selection tests - Access to documents)
   2010/C 148/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Carlos Matos Martins (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Annul, first, the decision of EPSO of 27 February 2006 laying down the results of pre-selection tests for members of the contract staff (EU-25), secondly, the decision not to register the applicant on the database of candidates who had successfully completed those tests and, thirdly, the consequences of the selection procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Matos Martins to bear his own costs, except the costs of accommodation and travel incurred as a result of the consultation of documents by his lawyer on 30 March, 1 April and 21 July 2009 in the premises of the Registry of the Tribunal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Matos Martins referred to in paragraph 2 above.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 43.


title: Case C-483/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2012 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2012 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
   (Case C-483/12)
   2013/C 26/42
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

      Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV

      Questions referred

   Must the principle of equality, which is enshrined in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on the European Union and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Articles 15 and 16 of that Charter and Articles 34 to 36, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding rules such as those contained in Articles 8, 9, 16 and 17 of the Law of 10 November 2006 on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services, in so far as the obligation contained in those articles that a weekly closing day be provided for:

               (i)

               does not apply to traders established in railway stations or in units of establishment of public transport companies, to sales in airports and port areas open to international travel or to sales in petrol stations or units of establishment located in motorway areas, but does apply to traders established in other locations,

               (ii)

               does not apply to traders engaged in the sale of goods such as newspapers, magazines, tobacco products and smoking accessories, telephone cards and National Lottery products, the sale of audiovisual media and video games and the sale of ice cream, but does apply to traders who offer other goods for sale,

               (iii)

               applies only to the retail trade, namely to undertakings which are engaged in sales to consumers, whilst it does not apply to other traders,

               (iv)

               entails, at least for traders who carry out their activity by means of a physical sales point and who are in direct contact with consumers, a significantly larger restriction than for traders who carry out their activity via an online shop or possibly via other forms of distance selling?


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-86/17 (OJ C 104, 3.4.2017)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/55

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-86/17
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 104 of 3 April 2017
      )
   (2017/C 231/73)
   The notice concerning Case T-86/17, Le Pen v Parliament should read as follows:

      Action brought on 10 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
      (Case T-86/17)
      (2017/C 104/85)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 taken in accordance with Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 issuing a demand for payment to the applicant in respect of EUR 298 497,87 for sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, stating reasons for the recovery of those sums and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accountant, to recover those sums in accordance with Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation (‘the FR’);

                  —

                  annul the debit note No 2016-1560 of 6 December 2016, demanding that applicant pay the sum of EUR 298 497,87 pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 86 of the Implementing Measure for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the FR;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay Ms Le Pen EUR 50 000 as payment for recoverable costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action the applicant puts forward twelve pleas:

                  1.

                  First plea, based on the lack of competence of the author of the act. The applicant takes the view that the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 (‘the contested decision’) falls within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament and the signatory of the decision did not indicate any delegation of powers.

                  2.

                  Second plea, based on the lack of reasoning in the contested decision, even though that requirement is laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea claiming infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the contested decision referred to the investigation report prepared by the European Anti- Fraud Office (‘OLAF’), closed on 26 July 2016, which was not communicated to the applicant. Therefore, applicant was not heard and was not able to properly avail herself of her right to defend herself, since the Secretary General refused to communicate to her the evidence on which the contested decision is based.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea, based on the failure by the Secretary General of the European Parliament to personally examine file. According to the applicant, the latter merely relied on the report by OLAF and never personally examined the applicant’s situation.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea, based on the lack of any facts supporting the contested decision and the debit note (‘the contested acts’), in that the facts on which they are based are inaccurate.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea, based on the reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for her to adduce evidence of her parliamentary assistant’s work, but that it is for the competent authorities to prove the contrary.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as there are no grounds with regard to the details or the method of calculation of the sum claimed from the applicant, and it is assumed that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea, based on an abuse of powers, in that the contested acts were adopted with the aim of depriving the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, of the means to carry out her mandate.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea, based on an abuse of process. The applicant considers that, to avoid being ordered to send her the OLAF report which was in his possession, the Secretary General unlawfully sent the request for communication of that report to OLAF which has not sent her the report.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea, based on discrimination and the existence of fumus persecutionis, in that the circumstances surrounding the present dispute exclusively concern the applicant and her party.

                  11.

                  Eleventh plea, based on the undermining of the independence of a member of parliament and the consequences of the lack of any binding mandate. The contested acts were undoubtedly intended to impede the freedom to exercise the applicant’s parliamentary mandate, by depriving her of the financial means necessary to carry out her mission. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to receive instructions from the Secretary General as to how she was to carry out her mandate, subject to the threat of financial sanctions.

                  12.

                  Twelfth plea, based on OLAF’s lack of independence, in that that body did not offer any guarantee of impartiality and probity and is under the control of the European Commission.


title: Case T-378/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — CNH Global v OHIM (Combination of the colours red, black and grey for a tractor) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours red, black and grey applied to the exterior surfaces of a tractor — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — CNH Global v OHIM (Combination of the colours red, black and grey for a tractor)
   (Case T-378/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours red, black and grey applied to the exterior surfaces of a tractor - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CNH Global NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1642/2006-1), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign representing a tractor in red, black and grey

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CNH Global NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-215/11: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — ADEDY and Others v Council (Actions for annulment — Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying a situation of excessive deficit — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/45

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — ADEDY and Others v Council
   (Case T-215/11) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying a situation of excessive deficit - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 26/89
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Anotati Dioikisi Enoseon Dimosion Ypallilon (ADEDY), (Athens, Greece); Spyridon Papaspyros (Athens); and Ilias Iliopoulos (Athens) (represented by: M.-M. Tsipra, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, M. Vitsentzatos and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J. P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2011/57/EU of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU (OJ 2010 L 145, p. 6) addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Anotati Dioikisi Enoseon Dimosion Ypallilon (ADEDY), Mr Spyridon Papaspyros and Mr Ilias Iliopoulos shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case T-139/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/30

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kibelisa v Council
   (Case T-139/17)
   (2017/C 129/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roger Kibelisa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Roger Kibelisa;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs, and to pay those of the applicant and of all the interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements committed by the Council, in particular infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the Council's obligation to state reasons and infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law, in that the Council infringed the applicant’s right to property.


title: Case C-108/11: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — VAT — Reduced rate — Supply of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, hire of horses and insemination services — Directive 2006/112/EC — Infringement of Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/3

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-108/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - VAT - Reduced rate - Supply of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption, hire of horses and insemination services - Directive 2006/112/EC - Infringement of Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110)
   2013/C 141/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, D. O’Hagan, M. Collins and N. Travers, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96, 98 (in conjunction with Annex III) and Article 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation applying a reduced VAT rate to supplies of greyhounds and horses not normally intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and to certain insemination services

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax of 4.8% to supplies of greyhounds and horses not intended for the preparation of foodstuffs, to the hire of horses and certain insemination services, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96, 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-191/02: Action brought on 23 May 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 180/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
Action brought on 23 May 2002 by Commission of                           the overall reduction of 75 % to which the Federal Republic
the European Communities against Federal Republic of                     refers with regard to the nitrogen load must have been
                            Germany                                      measured according to the monitoring methods applied in
                                                                         Germany. That level of nitrogen reduction cannot therefore
                                                                         substantiate the equivalence of monitoring method applied in
                        (Case C-191/02)                                  Germany.
                        (2002/C 180/20)                                  (1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1971, p. 40. Annex I of the Directive was
                                                                             amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February
                                                                             1998, OJ L 67 of 7.3.98, p. 29.
                                                                         (2) Verordnung über Anforderungen an das Einleiten von Abwasser
                                                                             in Gewässer of 21 March 1991, BGBl. 1997 I-566, as amended
                                                                             by the notice of 20.9.2001, BGBl. 2001 I-2240.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 May 2002 by Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal advisor
of the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                         Appellate Authority, by order of that court dated 27 May
                                                                         2002, in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Catherine Zhu against Secretary of State for the Home
                                                                                Department
1.    Declare that, by failing to ensure equivalence of the
      monitoring methods in accordance with Annex I Part D.1                                       (Case C-200/02)
      of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
      concerning urban waste water treatment, the Federal
                                                                                (2002/C 180/21)
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the directive and in particular under Article 15(1)
      thereof.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs             European Communities by an order of the Immigration
      of the proceedings.                                                Appellate Authority dated 27 May 2002, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 30 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Man Lavette Chen and Kunqian Catherine Zhu
                                                                         against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the
                                                                         following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         1.    On the facts of the present case, does Article 1 of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/148/EEC (1) or in the alternative of Article 1
                                                                               of Council Directive 90/364/EEC(2):
The application of the monitoring methods used in Germany
(‘2-hours-mixed sample’ and ‘qualified random sample’) (2)                     a)    confer the right on the First Appellant, who is a
instead of the methods required by the directive in Annex I                          minor and a citizen of the Union, to enter and reside
part D, numbers 2, 3 and 4, has the result that the limits laid                      in the host Member State?
down by the Directive can be exceeded without objection. This
is proved by the results of a study commissioned by the                        b)    and if so, does it consequently confer the right on
Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Office) in 1996:
                                                                                the Second Appellant, a third country national who
‘Expert opinion as to the equivalence of the requirements of                         is the First Appellant’s mother and primary carer, to
the Framework Waste Water Regulations and the EU Directive                           reside with the First Appellant (i) as her dependent
as regards the discharge concentration of urban waste water
                                                                                relative, or (ii) because she lived with the First
treatment plants and the degree of nitrogen elimination’.                            Appellant in her country of origin, or (iii) on any
                                                                                other special basis?
The Commission rejects the objection that, on account of                 2.    If and to the extent that the First Appellant is not a
Article 5(4) of the directive, it is not necessary to appraise the             ‘national of a member state’ for purposes of exercising
equivalence of the monitoring methods for individual plants.                   Community Rights pursuant to Council Directive 73/
Article 5 governs an area different from Article 15 and Annex I                148/EEC or Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC,
part D. Article 5 governs quality requirements, exceptions from                what then are the relevant criteria for identifying whether
which are admitted subject to a quite specific requirement.                    a child, who is a citizen of the Union, is a national of a
Article 15 and Annex I part D govern monitoring methods by                     member state for purposes of exercising Community
which compliance with limits is reviewed. It is quite clear that               rights?


title: Case T-160/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/43

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council
   (Case T-160/14)
   2014/C 142/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd (Baoding, China); Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Haikou, China); Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Hengshui, China); Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Tianjin, China); Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd (Baoding); Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China); Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing); Yingli Green Energy Europe (Düsseldorf, Germany); Yingli Green Energy South East Europe GmbH (Grünwald, Germany); Yingli Green Energy France SAS (Lyon, France); Yingli Green Energy Spain, SL (La Moraleja, Spain); Yingli Green Energy Italia Srl (Rome, Italy); and Yingli Green Energy International AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by making the applicants’ market economy determination more than three months after the initiation of the investigation and after having received all information necessary to calculate the dumping margins, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that by failing to disclose the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Institutions intended to impose definitive anti-dumping measures, the Institutions violated Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 June 1998 in Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v Council of the European Union (State aid - Shipbuilding - Regulation laying down exceptions - Shipyards under restructuring states - Action brought by a regional authority - Admissibility)

text:
15.8.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/35
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           of the European Communities (Agents: during the written
                        of 25 June 1998                             procedure, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and, in the oral
                                                                    procedure, Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier)
in Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts v Commission of the                Ð application, first, for the annulment of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Commission's decisions of 23 September 1996 not to
(Member of the temporary staff Ð Contract for a limited             increase the amount transferred to the applicant's building
period Ð Possibility of its being extended Ð Actual                 loan savings account and of 28 April 1997 rejecting his
extension Ð Action for annulment Ð Manifest                         complaint, second, for a declaration that the applicant is
                        inadmissibility)                            entitled to the transfer of DKR 20 000 and, third, for
                                                                    compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                         (98/C 258/61)                              Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
                                                                    A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                (Language of the case: French)                      the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 July 1998, in which it:
In Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts, a member of the                   1. Dismisses the application;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence                (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 August 1996 expressly
rejecting the applicant's request for an extension of his
contract as a member of the temporary staff, alternatively
for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 March
1997 expressly rejecting his complaint Ð the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                   of 16 June 1998
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                        in Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. The application is dismissed;                                    (State aid Ð Shipbuilding Ð Regulation laying down
                                                                    exceptions Ð Shipyards under restructuring states Ð
                                                                      Action brought by a regional authority Ð Admissibility)
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 258/63)
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria,
                                                                    represented by Juan Ignacio SaÂez Bereciartu, of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Cantabria Bar, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                       (Third Chamber)                              Diego Canga Fano and Stephan Marquardt) Ð
                                                                    application for partial annulment of Council Regulation
                         of 2 July 1998                             (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain
in   Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff                v      shipyards under restructuring states (OJ L 148 of
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                  6.6.1997, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                    Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
(Officials Ð Transfers of part of pay in the currency of a          Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura
Member State other than the country where the institution           Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                          has its seat)                             Registrar, made an order on 16 June 1998, the operative
                         (98/C 258/62)                              part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an
official working for the Commission of the European                 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio
Creus Carreras, Alex Subirachs Amigó and Marta Ventura              (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas, 78
Avenue d'Auderghem, 1040 Brussels, against Commission


title: Case C-86/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/12

         Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-86/13)
   2013/C 123/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Council’s decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.
   The first plea alleges infringement of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Regulations, in that, in the absence of any proposal by the Commission to apply the exception clause in Article 10 of Annex XI, the Council was required to adopt, before 31 December 2012, the proposal for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union submitted by the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI. The Council does not have the authority to adopt a decision applying, in essence, Article 10, without an appropriate Commission proposal or without the participation of the Parliament, its co-legislator under Article 10.
   The second plea alleges infringement of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, in that the Council failed to adopt, even though required to do so, the new correction coefficients to be applied to remuneration and pensions, which were proposed by the Commission in order to ensure equal treatment as between officials and pensioners irrespective of their place of employment or residence, as the case may be.
   The third plea alleges complete failure to state reasons, since the Council simply stated that the qualified majority necessary for the adoption the Commission’s proposal in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI was not reached, without explaining why it had disregarded the proposal. This plea is directed at both the adjustment of remuneration and pensions and the adoption of new correction coefficients.


C 348/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                8.12.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-249/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-443/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/39)                                                     (2001/C 348/42)
By order of 2 August 2001 the President of the Court of Justice     By order of 13 September 2001 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
the register of Case C-249/00: Commission of the European           from the register of Case C-443/00: Commission of the
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-272/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-132/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/40)                                                     (2001/C 348/43)
By order of 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of          By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-272/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-132/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                           European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-354/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-133/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/41)                                                     (2001/C 348/44)
By order of 4 October 2001 the President of the Court of            By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-354/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-133/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                            European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.


title: Case C-112/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/5

         Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-112/07)
   (2007/C 117/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. De Persio and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (1) or, in any case, by not communicating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2004/80/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2006, with the exception of Article 12(2) of that Directive, in respect of which the date of compliance was 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.


title: Case C-461/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Irlande) (Ireland) made on 28 July 2017 — Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan v An Bord Pleanála

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Irlande) (Ireland) made on 28 July 2017 — Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan v An Bord Pleanála
   (Case C-461/17)
   (2017/C 338/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Irlande)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle and Liam Donegan

      Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

      Questions referred

               (a)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must identify the entire extent of the habitats and species for which the site is listed;

               (b)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the potential impact on all species (as opposed to only protected species) which contribute to and are part of a protected habitat must be identified and discussed in a Natura Impact Statement;

               (c)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must expressly address the impact of the proposed development on protected species and habitats both located on the SAC site as well as species and habitats located outside its boundaries;

               (d)

               whether Directive 2011/92/EU (2) of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact statement must expressly address whether the proposed development will significantly impact on the species identified in the statement;

               (e)

               whether an option that the developer considered and discussed in the environmental impact assessment, and/or that was argued for by some of the stakeholders, and/or that was considered by the competent authority, amounts to a ‘main alternative’ within the meaning of art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, even if it was rejected by the developer at an early stage;

               (f)

               whether Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact assessment should contain sufficient information as to the environmental impact of each alternative as to enable a comparison to be made between the environmental desirability of the different alternatives; and/or that it must be made explicit in the environmental impact statement as to how the environmental effects of the alternatives were taken into account;

               (g)

               whether the requirement in art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, that the reasons for the developer's choice must be made by ‘taking into account the environmental effects’, applies only to the chosen option or also to the main alternatives studied, so as to require the analysis of those options to address their environmental effects;

               (h)

               whether it is compatible with the attainment of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended that details of the construction phase (such as the compound location and haul routes) can be left to post-consent decision, and if so whether it is open to a competent authority to permit such matters to be determined by unilateral decision by the developer, within the context of any development consent granted, to be notified to the competent authority rather than approved by it;

               (i)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority is obliged to record, with sufficient detail and clarity to dispel any doubt as to the meaning and effect of such opinion, the extent to which scientific opinion presented to it argues in favour of obtaining further information prior to the grant of development consent;

               (j)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the competent authority is required to give reasons or detailed reasons for rejecting a conclusion by its inspector that further information or scientific study is required prior to the grant of development consent; and

               (k)

               whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority, when conducting an appropriate assessment, must provide detailed and express reasons for each element of its decision.

      (1)  OJ L 206, p. 7

      (2)  OJ L 26, p. 1


title: Case T-119/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission (Application for interim relief — Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus — Application for suspension of operation of the notice — No urgency)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/38

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-119/08 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus - Application for suspension of operation of the notice - No urgency)
   (2008/C 171/72)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and I. Zervas, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of a procurement notice issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus in the field of livestock rearing.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-412/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 29 August 2014  — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 29 August 2014 — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-412/14)
   (2014/C 448/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

               3.

               If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

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


title: Case T-73/10 P: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2010 — Apostolov v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Recruitment — Competition — Rejection of application — Delay — Different overall impression — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Order of the General Court of 2 December 2010 — Apostolov v Commission
   (Case T-73/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Recruitment - Competition - Rejection of application - Delay - Different overall impression - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 46/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Svetoslav Apostolov (Saarwellingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addae-Mensah, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case F-8/09 Apostolov v Commission ECR-SC I A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking, inter alia, to have that order set aside

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Svetoslav Apostolov shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-161/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/44

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council
   (Case T-161/14)
   2014/C 142/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd (Baoding, China); Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Haikou, China); Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Hengshui, China); Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Tianjin, China); Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd (Baoding); Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China); Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing); Yingli Green Energy Europe (Düsseldorf, Germany); Yingli Green Energy South East Europe GmbH (Grünwald, Germany); Yingli Green Energy France SAS (Lyon, France); Yingli Green Energy Spain, SL (La Moraleja, Spain); Yingli Green Energy Italia Srl (Rome, Italy); and Yingli Green Energy International AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-24/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/881/EC — Financial corrections — Fruit and vegetable and public grain storage sector)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-24/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/881/EC - Financial corrections - Fruit and vegetable and public grain storage sector)
   (2005/C 45/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-24/03: Italian Republic (Agent: M. Fiorilli) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio) – action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 15 January 2003 – the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Chamber - Fiscal Matters) by judgment of that court of 19 October 1995 in the case of Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. against Ministério Público and Fazenda Pública (Case C-348/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 351 /9
         prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( ) or                 ( a ) is the specific object of the rights attaching to a
         any other Community legislation ?                                               trade-mark to be regarded as including the power
                                                                                conferred on the proprietor of a trade-mark under
(') Charges on milk products at the marketing stage, whether of                          national law to oppose , with regard to alcoholic drinks
       domestic origin or imported , intended for public consumption ,                   manufactured by him, the removal by a third party of
        levied by Iroma .                                                                labels affixed by the proprietor on bottles and on the
( 2 ) Council Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .                                packaging containing them, and bearing his mark, after
n oi No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 23 .                                                the drinks have been placed by him on the Community
                                                                                market in that packaging, and the subsequent
                                                                                re-application of those labels by that third party or their
                                                                                replacement by similar labels, without thereby in some
                                                                                way damaging the original condition of the product ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal                       ( b ) In so far as the labels are replaced by other similar
Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by                                    labels, is the position different where the third party
judgment of that court of 19 October 1995 in the case of                                 omits the indication ' pure ' appearing on the original
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. against Ministerio                                 labels and/or, as the case may be, replaces the
                       Publico and Fazenda Publica                                       importer's name with another name ?
                              ( Case C-348/95 )
                                  ( 95/C 351 /14 )                                ( c ) If question ( a ) falls to be answered in the affirmative ,
                                                                                but the proprietor of the trade-mark avails himself of
                                                                                the power referred to in that question in order to
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  prevent the third party from removing the
 European Communities by judgment of the Supremo                                          identification marks which the trade-mark proprietor
Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )                                 has affixed on or underneath the labels in order to
 ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 19 October 1995 ,                                enable the trade-mark proprietor to detect shortfalls
 which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November                                 within his sales organization and thus to combat
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de                                parallel trade in his products , must such an exercise of
 Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda . against Ministerio Publico and                               the trade-mark right be regarded as a 'disguised
 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :                                             restriction on trade between Member States ' aimed at
                                                                                achieving an artificial compartmentalization of the
  1 . having regard to the facts deemed to have been proven in                            markets ?
         the present judgment and the applicable Community
          legislation , are the goods in question ( cheese ) (') to be             ( d ) To what extent is the answer to . question ( c ) affected
         classified under subheading 0406 90 1 1 of the Common                            where the trade-mark proprietor has affixed those
          Customs Tariff ( CCT ) nomenclature ( 2 )?                                      identification marks either pursuant to a legal
                                                                                obligation or voluntarily , but in any event with a view
 2 . If not, under which tariff heading should they be                                    to making a 'product recall ' possible and/or in order to
          classified ?                                                                    limit his product liability and/or to combat
                                                                                counterfeiting, or, as the case may be , solely in order to
  (') As described in footnote 2 of the information notice for Case                       combat parallel trade ?
         C- 164/95 , published in OJ No C 189 of 22 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 345 of 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                Action brought on 10 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                                                    Luxembourg
  Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 3 November                                                       (Case C-350/95 )
   1995 in the case of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine                                                ( 95/C 351 / 16 )
                           & Son Ltd and Others
                                ( Case C-349/95 )                                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                    ( 95/C 351 / 15 )                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities on 10 November 1995 by the Commission of
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the European Communities , represented by Dimitrios
   European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                            Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
   Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
   3 November 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   on 13 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
   of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd on the                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   following questions :                                                            the Court should :


title: Case T-61/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — ABC-One v OHIM (SLIM BELLY)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/26

         Action brought on 6 February 2012 — ABC-One v OHIM (SLIM BELLY)
   (Case T-61/12)
   2012/C 98/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St. Magdalen, Austria) (represented by S. Merz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in Case R 1077/2011-1 concerning the application for registration of the word sign ‘SLIM BELLY’ as a Community trade mark;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SLIM BELLY’ (application No 8 576 811) for goods and services in Classes 28, 41 and 44

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2000 in Case C-89/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin): Bülent Recep Bicakci and Others v Land Berlin (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Identical question)

text:
C 95/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.3.2001
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-33/01)
                      of 19 September 2000
                                                                                (2001/C 95/06)
in Case C-89/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin): Bülent Recep Bicakci and
                      Others v Land Berlin (1)                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Janu-
                                                                            ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Identical                       represented by Hans Stovlbaek, of its Legal Service, and
                               question)                                    Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on
                                                                            secondment to its Legal Service.
                           (2001/C 95/05)
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)                           —     declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-
                                                                                mission within the time-limit laid down the information
                                                                                required by Article 8(3) of Directive 97/689/EEG, and (1)
                                                                                and by Commission Decision 96/302/EC (2) which is
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                envisaged by that provision, concerning every establish-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                ment or undertaking which carries out disposal and/or
                                                                                recovery of hazardous waste, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
In Case C-89/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                directive.
from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court,
Berlin) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye                     —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci and Land
Berlin — on the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Decision
No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Community and Turkey — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo,              Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC imposes en obligation
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 on the Member States to send to the Commission certain
19 September 2000 in which it has ruled:                                    information relating to every establishement or undertaking
                                                                            which carries out disposal and/or recovery of hazardous waste.
Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council          The Commission states that the Hellenic Republic did not send
established by the Association Agreement between the European               the information prescribed by that directive within the time-
Economic Community and Turkey is to be interpreted as precluding            limit laid down (that is to say immediately after the entry into
the expulsion of a Turkish national who enjoys a right granted              force of Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996
directly by that decision when it is ordered, following a criminal          establishing a format in which information is to be provided
conviction, as a deterrent to other aliens without the personal conduct     pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC) and, of
of the person concerned giving reason to consider that he will commit       course, has not notified the Commission of any changes in
other serious offences prejudicial to the requirements of public policy     that information.
in the host Member State.
                                                                            (1) OJ No L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
( 1) OJ No C 149, 27.5.2000.                                                (2) OJ No L 116, 11.5.1996, p. 26.


title: Case C-594/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2010 — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2010 — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-594/10)
   2011/C 80/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T.G. van Laarhoven

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) preclude amendments to deduction-limiting legislation such as that in question, according to which a Member State has sought to take advantage of the possibility, for which that provision provides, of (retaining) the exclusion of deduction in respect of certain goods and services if, as a consequence of those amendments, the amount excluded from deduction has been increased in most cases, but the approach and scheme of the deduction-limiting legislation have remained unchanged?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the national courts refrain from applying the deduction-limiting legislation as a whole, or is it sufficient for them to refrain from applying the legislation to the extent that it has increased the scale of the exclusion or restriction existing at the time when the Sixth Directive entered into force?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt v European Environment Agency (EEA) (Officials — Internal competition — Annulment — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 150/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
compensation for alleged non-material damage — the Court                    1.    dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-            2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
22 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.00.
1.    dismisses the claims for annulment relating to the promotion of
      the applicant to Grade B 4 as inadmissible;
2.    dismisses the claim for compensation for the non-material
      damage allegedly caused by the discriminatory conduct of the
      Parliament with regard to the promotion of the applicant to
      Grade B 4;
                                                                            Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-530/93
                                                                            to T-533/93, T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94,
3.    dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;              T-73/94 to T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94,
                                                                            T-96/94, T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94,
4.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                            T-130/94, T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/52)
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            By order of 15 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the
                                                                            list of applicants in Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93,
                                                                            T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94 to
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94, T-96/94,
                                                                            T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94, T-130/94,
                       of 13 February 2001                                  T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 R. Bathoorn and Others v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities:
in Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt v European Environ-
                      ment Agency (EEA) (1)                                 —     in Case T-530/93: R. Bathoorn, D.J. and N.W.C. Augusti-
                                                                                nus, H.J. Beltman, G. Beukers, M. Brouwer, H. van
                                                                                Deurzen, W. van Ginkel, A.F. de Groot, X.J. van Haren,
(Officials — Internal competition — Annulment — Transfer
     — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)                            F. v.d. Hoek, J. Houtsma, A.M. Idema, W. de Jager,
                                                                                W.G.M. Kleinlangevelsloo, W.H. Klein Poelhuis, J. Knoll,
                                                                                T.W. Kruizinga, M.J. Lemmen, H.B. Lenferink, W. Male-
                          (2001/C 150/51)                                         stein, W.A.J. Nederend, G.J. and A. Nijboer, J.S.M. Nijland-
                                                                                v.d. Berg, T. Rovers-van Schijndel, N.P. van Stralen,
                                                                                P.H. Twisk, B. van Veen, J.A. Wichink, W. Zuideveld;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            —     in Case T-531/93: H. Aamink, J. ter Avest, J.H.B.J. ter
                                                                                Bekke, G.J. and D. van de Berg, E.J. Bosboom,
In Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt, an official of the European                  A.J.M.F. Bouwman, N.S. Bouwhuis, G.J. Edeleijn, G. Geer-
Environment Agency, residing in Copenhagen, represented by                        dink, J. Gemmink, B.J.M. Gielink, P. van de Groes, G. van
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in                 der Groot, J.P.H. Groothuis, G. Helder, W. Houtsma,
Luxembourg, against The European Environment Agency                               A.H.B.M. Jansen, B. Kemna, A.G. Keuper, F.E. Keuper,
(EEA) (Agents: J.-L. Salazar, J. Rivière and D. Waelbroeck) —                     T.M.F. Klazinga, F.B. Kuiper, H. Lammers, B.H. Luijerink,
application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the                      L.H.W. van Marwijk, B.J.P. Meekenkamp, H.S. van de
EEA of 24 September 1999 to annul internal competition                            Meulen, J.H. Nagel, G.J.H. Nijhof, H.G.J. Ottenschot,
EEA/T/99/1 for the post of head of the ‘Finance’ department                       G.A. Oude Voshaar, W.A. Overbeek, H. Peltjes, P.P. Reim-
and, secondly, the decision of the EEA of 13 December 1999                        er, W. Rensen, G.J. Rikhof, J. Ruesink, J.G.A. Schrijver
to transfer the applicant from the Commission to the EEA                          Groote Stroek, J.H. Th. Siemens, L. Spijkers (Hardenveld),
inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade A 5, step 3, with effect                   L. Spijkers (previously Baneheide, now Simpelveld),
from 1 November 1999 — the Court of First Instance                                A. Steur, G. Talma, G.M.J. Vergeldt, L. Vos;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal                 —     in Case T-533/93: J.B. Averink, D. Bekkemens-Boode,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 Febru-                    W. Brouwer, W. Grijpstra, A.J. Hebben, J.M.R. Huver,
ary 2001, in which it:                                                            T.W.J. Kraayvanger, H.G.J. Scholten


title: Removal from the register of Case C-403/93

text:
 11.11.95            lENl                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 299/ 15
      Removal from the register of Case C-403 /93 ( 1 )                 C-403/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                           W/C 299/25 )                                 Regional Office of the Industrial Tribunals , London South ):
                                                                        M. J. C. 1 \ ans and the Executors of Priscilla Jane Evans v.
 By order of 15 September 1995 the President of the Sixth               Metropolitan Police Authority .
 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case              (') ()) No C 29.5 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCI
Action brought on 11 August 1995 by Eridania Zuccherifici                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and
Nazionali SpA and others against the Council of the                         successive amendments thereto , at least as regards
                    European Communities                                    Article 8 thereof, where it provides that the
                        ( Case T- 15 8 /95 )                                reimbursement in question is to be the same for the
                          ( 95/C 299/26 )
                                                                            whole Community ( Whilst the unlawfulness of that
                                                                            prov ision might be mitigated by the presence at the same
                                                                            time of the principle contained in Article 46 ( 4 ), such
                ( Language of the case: Italian)                            unlawfulness is manifest where even that modest
                                                                            corrective provision is absent ),
An action against the Council of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       — make any such further ruling as may be necessary in the
European Communities on 11 August 1995 by Eridania                          circumstances ,
Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, with its registered office in
Genoa , and Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale
SpA , with its registered office in Padua ( the                        — award costs in favour of the applicants .
Eridania-Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa
Sadam      Zuccherifici ,    a  division   of   Societa   Esercizi
Commerciali Industriali SpA, Societa Sadam Castiglionese               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SpA and Societa Sadam Abruzzo SpA , all registered in
Bologna , and Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, with its
registered office in Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group );         A number of Italian sugar companies challenge the new
Societa Eondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA , with its                 Community rules on compensation for sugar storage costs
registered office in Cesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri             laid down by Regulations ( EC]) No 1101 /95 and ( EC )
SpA , with its registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SEIR          No 1534/95 , at least in so far as they fail to differentiate the
Group ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the             amounts of compensatory reimbursement payable by
High Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo               reference to the financing costs affecting the sugar
                                                                       manufacturers of each Member State .
Crocetta , of the Genoa Bar , with and address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen ,
12 Boulevard de la Loire .                                             It should be noted in that respect that, in order to avoid a
                                                                       manifestly unlawful result arising from the granting of the
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           same reimbursement to every Community manufacturer
                                                                       without reference to the different financing costs affecting
— annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1 101 /95 of 24 April 1995 , at           eacht of them . Regulation ( EEC ]) No 1785 / 81 contained a
    least in so far as , in amending Regulation ( EEC])                provision in Article 46 ( 4 ), always repeated in subsequent
    No 1785/81 , it does not provide for differentiation of            amendments , whereby ' the Italian Republic shall be
    the compensatory reimbursement for storage costs by               authorized , when the interest rate granted in Italy to the
    reference to the financing costs affecting the sugar               most solvent applicant is higher, by 3 % or more , than the
    manufacturers of each country ,                                    interest rate used to calculate the reimbursement ( by way of
                                                                       compensation for storage costs ), to cover the effect of this
— annul Regulation ( EC]) No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 , or              difference on the storage costs by a national aid '. That
    in any event Article 4 thereof, which fixes the amount of          remedy , which was in itself inadequate inasmuch as it
    the reimbursement for the 1995/96 marketing year                   imposed an unjustified threshold of 3% and in any event
    referred to in Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ]) No 1785/8 1        constituted not a guarantee of higher reimbursement but
    at a single measure without reference to the interest rates        merely the possibility that the Italian Republic might grant
    prevailing in each Member State ,                                  an aid , no longer appears in the new rules which are in
                                                                       dispute . Under the new rules , such reimbursement is fixed
— annul , so far as may be necessary, all other measures in            by reference to an interest rate of 6,75 % , with no provision
    relation to the above/mentioned , whether prior ,                  for differentiation by reference to the financing costs
    subsequent or howsoever connected , including                      affecting sugar manufacturers in each country .