title: Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-252/98)

text:
5.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/23
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  1. Should Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be
that the Court should:                                                 interpreted as precluding as incompatible therewith a
                                                                       restriction resulting from the legislation of a Member
                                                                       State concerning the taxation of assets, which grants a
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations              shareholder an exemption from wealth tax in respect
    and administrative measures necessary in order to                  of capital invested in shares in an undertaking Ð
    comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of                        provided the shares form part of a material
    30 October 1989 amending Directives 73/362/EEC,                    shareholding Ð but restricts that exemption to shares
    77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/                    in a company established in that Member State?
    EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas,
    certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
    as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental        2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, should
    practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives,                   Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty be interpreted
    together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC                   as precluding as incompatible therewith a restrictive
    and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of                      provision such as that described in question 1?
    provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    administrative action relating to the activities of
    doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (1), the
    French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under Directive 89/594/EEC,
                                                                   Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-252/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                          (98/C 278/41)
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of          An action against the French Republic was brought before
the EC Treaty, each Member State is required to take all           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
necessary measures to transpose directives into its                10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
domestic legal order prior to the expiry of the time limit         Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Principal
prescribed for doing so. That time limit, laid down in             Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service,
Article 28 of Directive 89/594/EEC, expired on 8 May               acting as Agents, with an address for service in
1991, but France has not communicated the provisions of            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
domestic law to be adopted.                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 341, 23.11.1989, p. 19.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                       and administrative measures necessary in order to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te               comply with Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, as
's-Gravenhage in the case of C. Baars Jr against Inspecteur            interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments in
der Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin-                 Heylens (1) and Vlassopoulou (2), with regard to
                             chem                                      persons who hold a diploma as a specialist nurse
                                                                       obtained by the direct route' which has not been
                       (Case C-251/98)                                 officially approved in France and who wish to pursue
                                                                       in that country the profession of a nurse providing
                        (98/C 278/40)
                                                                       general care, and, in particular, by requiring such
                                                                       persons systematically to sit the final examinations
                                                                       covering the whole of the programme contained in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 three years of study required to qualify as a nurse,
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te                 without first taking into account the training already
's-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of                 acquired by the person concerned in another Member
8 July 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 July                 State, albeit that a partial or total dispensation has
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of C. Baars Jr              been allowed by France, the French Republic has
against Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
Ondernemingen (Inspector, Head of the Tax Office Unit
responsible for Individuals/Undertakings) Gorinchem on
the following questions:                                           Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the principles developed
by the case-law cited in its claim apply to professions and
situations which fall within the scope of general system'          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
Directives or sectorial' Directives but in which the               those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed for
conditions needing to be fulfilled under those Directives in        the transposition of the Directive expired on 1 February
order to enjoy recognition have not been complied with.             1997.
Even where a Directive concerning the mutual recognition
of diplomas does not apply, the Member States are obliged
to ensure freedom of movement for migrant workers,                  (1) OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8.
                                                                    (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
whether they are employed or self-employed. It would be
inconsistent for Directives which are designed to provide
for mutual recognition to have a restrictive effect on
freedom of establishment by denying a Community
national holding a diploma which does not fulfil the
conditions laid down by those Directives the possibility of
relying on the Vlassopoulou case-law when he could
certainly have done so in the absence of such Directives.           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June
                                                                    1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
(1) Judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987]             Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH
    ECR p. 4097.
(2) Judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou                                    (Case C-254/98)
    [1991] ECR I-2357.                                                                        (98/C 278/43)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by judgment of the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 13 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the             in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium               against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH on the following
                                                                    question:
                       (Case C-253/98)
                        (98/C 278/42)
                                                                    Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                    precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and
                                                                    grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                locality or from door to door goods which they are
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                   unless they also carry on their trade from fixed business
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                     premises situated in the administrative district in which
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting           they offer the goods for sale in the abovementioned
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             manner or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,               furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to
Kirchberg.                                                          locality or from door to door only such goods as are also
                                                                    offered for sale at the said fixed business premises?
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain
     and administrative measures necessary in order to                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     comply with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of                                           (Case C-255/98)
     25 June 1996 establishing a common model for an
     identity card for inspectors carrying out port State                                     (98/C 278/44)
     control (1), alternatively by failing within the
     prescribed time limit to communicate the measures
     necessary to comply therewith, the Kingdom of                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     Article 2 of that Directive and under the EC Treaty,           the European Communities on 14 July 1998 by the


title: Case T-398/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Fapricela v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Fapricela v Commission
   (Case T-398/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cooperation during the administrative procedure))
   (2015/C 302/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented initially by M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Guerreiro, R. Lopes and S. Alberto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011 in so far as it finds that Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA infringed Article 101(1) TFEU not only by participating in an infringement of that provision in the Iberian market but also by participating in a cartel covering the internal market and subsequently within the European Economic Area (EEA), and imposed on it a fine of EUR 8 8 74  000;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria at EUR 8 8 74  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-183/08 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05, Provincia di Imperia v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/20

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05, Provincia di Imperia v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-183/08 P)
   (2008/C 209/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Flynn, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Provincia di Imperia
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05;

               —

               declare that the action brought by the Provincia di Imperia in that case was inadmissible;

               —

               order the Provincia di Imperia to pay the Commission's costs in the present case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its appeal, the Commission complains that the judgment under appeal failed to apply the conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment brought under Article 230 EC, in particular by considering that the applicant at first instance had an interest in bringing an action. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is only admissible in so far as the outcome of the action is likely to produce a benefit for the applicant. In the present case, the action brought by the applicant is manifestly inadmissible since a judgment annulling the contested act would, in itself, in no way produce a ‘benefit’ for that applicant. The granting of a subsidy is effectively a concession agreed to by the Commission and a party responding to a call for proposals consequently has no right to such a subsidy.
   Alternatively, the Commission submits that, even if the applicant at first instance did have an interest in bringing an action on the day it brought its action, that interest would in any event have disappeared by the time the judgment under appeal was delivered, since the entire budget set aside for the call for proposals had been used up and the programming had come to an end.


title: Case C-370/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia
   (Case C-370/16)
   (2016/C 383/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Novara

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bruno Dell’Acqua

      Defendants: Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

      Question referred

   ‘Is prior authorisation in accordance with the [last] sentence of Article 1 of the “Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union” (Official Journal of the European Union C 310/261 of 16.12. 2004) necessary or not, when in attachment proceedings against a third party the sums to be attached are no longer held by the payer, the [European] Commission, but have already been transferred to the national paying agencies?’


title: Case T-14/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro — Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International — Opposition dismissed — Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 — No need to adjudicate — Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)
      (Case T-14/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro - Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International - Opposition dismissed - Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 - No need to adjudicate - Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 454/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Mareea Comtur SRL (Deva, Romania)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten and SC Mareea Comtur.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5) in so far as it concerns ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ in Class 35 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH.

         (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case C-66/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

   (Case C-66/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. (represented by: J. L Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Forms of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to several means adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

      First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) and of Protocol (26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

   In particular, the action emphasises that the Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

               —

               it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

               —

               it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

               —

               its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and ‘entrusting’ of it do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

               —

               it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).


title: Case C-324/01: Action brought on 28 August 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 289/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.10.2001
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Commission                     wright and Joëlle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                     service in Luxembourg.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-319/01)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2001/C 289/34)                                —     declare that, by omitting to take all the measures necess-
                                                                             ary in order to ensure the full and proper transposition
                                                                             of Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                         and (c) and 23(2), in conjunction with Annexes II, IV, V
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      and VI, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on 14 August 2001 by the Commission of the European                          on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen and Joelle                       and flora (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply
Adda, acting as Agents.                                                      with its obligations under that directive and under the
                                                                             third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                             the European Community;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
      Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of         Pleas in law and main arguments
      certain public and private projects on the environment (1),
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                            The Commission observes that the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       of the directive expired on 5 June 1994 without Belgium
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   having transposed, by means of provisions establishing a
                                                                       precise legal framework, the provisions listed above, save as
                                                                       regards the ‘Bruxelles-Capitale’ region, which on 26 October
                                                                       2000 adopted a decree with regard to the conservation of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. As regards the
                                                                       concepts defined in Article 1 of the directive, these need to be
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          transposed on account of their importance for the purposes of
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC         interpreting the other provisions of the directive. Lastly, as
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary          regards Articles 15 and 16(1) of the directive, the Commission
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic          considers that a Member State may not decline to transpose
law in such a way that, before the expiry of the period                those provisions unless it has waived in advance its right to
prescribed for doing so, they are fully effective. That period,        avail itself of the derogation possibilities afforded therein.
which is laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC,
expired on 14 March 1999 without Belgium having
implemented all its provisions throughout the national terri-          (1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
tory.
(1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-224/99 (1)
Action brought on 28 August 2001 by the Commission                                               (2001/C 289/36)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                            Belgium
                                                                       By order of 19 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                        (Case C-324/01)                                the register of Case C-224/99: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v French Republic.
                        (2001/C 289/35)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice on 28 August 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-


title: Case T-239/04: Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-239/04)
   (2004/C 217/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the European Commission was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by State Advocate Danilo del Gaizo.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the contested decision null and void;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2004)930 fin of 30 March 2004 relating to Proceeding No C62/2003 (ex NN 7/2003) declaring incompatible with the common market State aid in respect of urgent measures concerning employment to which Italy gave effect in the Decree-Law of 14 February 2003 converted into Law No 81 of 17 April 2003. In particular the Commission found that the aid measure at issue confers a financial benefit on persons acquiring undertakings in financial difficulties, which are subject to extraordinary administration, have at least 1000 employees and prior to 30 April 2003 entered into a collective agreement with the Ministry of Labour for approval of the transfer of workers, as well as for undertakings in financial difficulty subject to extraordinary administration having at least 1 000 employees and subject to transfer.
   In support of its claims the applicant State maintains that:

               —

               the aid at issue constitutes a measure of a general nature intended to promote employment and, as such, does not distort or threaten to distort competition; accordingly, it does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)EC.

               —

               the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the aid is negated by the period of validity of a measure justified by the need to confront a temporary situation or grave crisis in employment and limited to the period of time strictly necessary for tackling it, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

               —

               there has been an infringement of the guidelines concerning State aid for recovery and restructuring, inasmuch as, in regard to the sale of Ocean SpA to Brandt Italia, point 100 of those guidelines expressly refers to non-notified aid, stating that the Commission must examine the compatibility with the common market of any aid in favour of recovery and restructuring granted without the Commission's authorisation.

               —

               the Commission has infringed its Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1), inasmuch as it did not consider the aid measure at issue to be compatible with it.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 331, p. 3.


title: Case T-137/14: Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/55

         Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle)
   (Case T-137/14)
   2014/C 135/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: I Castellani Srl (Meldola, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli, F. Boscariol de Roberto, I. Gatto and D. Martucci, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie Chomarat (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2013 given in Case R 1001/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark representing a device of a circle for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark registration No 2 844 033

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: It revoked the registration of Community trade mark No 2 844 033

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-345/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State
   (Case C-345/16)
   (2016/C 326/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union for the Belgian tax system, at Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that Mr Jacob’s Luxembourg pensions, exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purposes of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the grant of tax advantages provided for under the CIR 92, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant, are reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both the applicants had income earned in Belgium and if Ms Lennertz, and not Mr Jacob, had received pensions only from Belgium?


title: Case T-170/05: Action brought on 21 April 2005 by Renate AMM and 14 others against European Parliament

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Action brought on 21 April 2005 by Renate AMM and 14 others against European Parliament
   (Case T-170/05)
   (2005/C 171/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 2005 by Renate AMM, residing in Brussels, and 14 other officials, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in that they fix their grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 or the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-162/05 and similar to those in Cases T-58/05 and T-164/05.


title: Case C-219/99: Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 226/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.8.1999
     products involved a notification number provided for by             2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 ff. (ex Article 30) of
     the EC Treaty;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         The third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty is binding
                                                                         and therefore requires the Member States to comply with the
                                                                         time-limits laid down in directives. The prescribed period laid
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          down in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the directive ended
                                                                         on 1 January 1997 without the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                         having adopted the necessary measures.
Despite the fact that the legislation applies to both national
and foreign products equally, the obligation to indicate the
notification number attributed by the Belgian authorities                (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
could have restrictive effects on trace, since it makes special
packaging or labelling necessary when contemplating distri-
bution in Belgium. Since it is merely the result of a desire to
facilitate monitoring measures and to make it easy to check
whether a product has been previously notified, it cannot be
justified by public health considerations, since less burdensome
measures could easily be devised. The Belgian authorities are
wrong to cite examples of Community provisions providing
for marking (veterinary sector, milk products, toys, aerosol
sprays and medicinal products) which permit the free move-               Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
ment of the product while indicating its compliance with                     European Communities against the French Republic
binding legislation, when the obligation which is the subject-
matter of the present action serves to lighten controls after
prior notification is given.                                                                        (Case C-219/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/41)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 1999
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                          (Case C-218/99)
                                                                         1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (1999/C 226/40)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of
                                                                              29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           Member States relating to lifts (1), the French Republic has
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
ties on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,             2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                         Case C-218/99 (2).
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of               (2) See p. 24 of this Official Journal.
     29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
     Member States relating to lifts (1), the Grand Duchy of
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;


title: Case F-90/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Traore v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Vacancy notice — Rejection of the applicant's candidature — Reassignment — Interest of the service)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/71

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Traore v Commission
   (Case F-90/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Vacancy notice - Rejection of the applicant's candidature - Reassignment - Interest of the service)
   (2009/C 44/124)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Amadou Traore (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decisions rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of chargé d'affaires ad interim at the Commission Delegation in Togo and for the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania — Annulment of the Commission decisions appointing other candidates to those posts — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Director of Resources of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 December 2006 rejecting Mr Traore's candidature for the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania and the decision to appoint Mr S to that post;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Mr Traore to bear half his own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of Mr Traore's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269 of 10.11.2007, p. 72.


title: Case C-31/12: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak
   (Case C-31/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 101/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem

      Criminal proceedings against

   Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1.11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) — Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations — Law of a Member State concerning games of chance

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), by decision of 13 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-227/99: Action brought on 11 October 1999 by Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/27
— order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288                Action brought on 11 October 1999 by Kvaerner War-
    EC, to make good any damage, and interest thereon, caused           now Werft GmbH against the Commission of the Euro-
    to the applicants, by the wrongful adoption of Regulation                                  pean Communities
    No 1586/99;
                                                                                (Case T-227/99)
— declare that the Commission pay the cost incurred in the
    making of the application.                                                                    (2000/C 6/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 October 1999 by Kvaerner
The present application concerns the administration by the              Warnow Werft GmbH, of Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the annual          represented by Dr Michael Schütte, of Bruckhaus Westrick
licence entitlement to the applicants for the import of bananas         Heller Löber, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxem-
within the third country tariff rate quotas established by              bourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 Feb-
ruary 1993 and as substantially amended by EC Regulation
No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998. The application arises actually             The applicant claims that the Court should:
out of the adoption, by the Commission, of a reduction
coefficient based on a pretended incorrect reference quantity           1. Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 1999,
figure which reduces the applicants’ licence entitlement for the
1999 marketing year.
                                                                            in the alternative: annul the Commission’s decision in so
                                                                            far as the Commission wrongly used as basis of the
                                                                            calculation of the demand for repayment a total amount
The applicants put forward the following submissions:                       of aid approved of DEM 1 246,9 million (less 27 million
                                                                            aid on closure) instead of the total amount of the operating
                                                                            aid actually granted;
— The definitive reference quantity for 1999 is incorrect. As
    a matter of fact, the Commission knew, when it adopted              2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
    the definitive reduction coefficient for 1999, that the
    quantities of bananas actually imported or licences used
    were substantially lower than the reference quantities
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    claimed by the operators;
                                                                        In the contested decision, addressed to Germany, aid by
— Allowing double counting or overclaims of 4 % or 3 % to               Germany in favour of the applicant in the amount of EUR 41,5
    occur is not a case of Commission exercising a discretion.          million was declared to be incompatible with the common
    It has no discretion, only a duty to determine the reduction        market under Article 87(1) EC. In a number of previous
    coefficient in accordance with the law, and it has acted in         decisions the Commission had made a restriction of the
    breach of that duty;                                                applicant’s annual shipbuilding capacity a condition of the
                                                                        approval of the aid. It now reaches the conclusion that the
                                                                        applicant failed to comply with those restriction obligations.
— The Commission did not correctly apply the rules when it              To the extent that the approved capacity was exceeded,
    knowingly accepted a 4 % or 3 % overstatement of the                therefore, the aid is no longer consistent with Community law.
    reference quantity. Furthermore, the Commission cannot
    justify these errors by stating that it has difficulties in
    establishing the precise quantities of bananas which had            The applicant contests the decision on the following grounds:
    been imported. The calculation of the 1999 reduction
    coefficient no longer refers to quantities of bananas                   Breach of essential procedural require-
    marketed during the years preceding the common organi-                  ments
    sation of the market but on the basis of the bananas
    actually imported or on the basis of the licences used
    during 1994, 1995 and 1996.                                         — At the time when the contested decision was voted on, the
                                                                            Commission was irregularly composed, since there was no
                                                                            legal basis for the ’suspension’ of Mr Bangemann. In
                                                                            addition, two members of the Commission, namely Com-
                                                                            mission President Santer and Mrs Bonino, had already
                                                                            been elected to the European Parliament, that being
                                                                            incompatible with their membership of the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/28                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
— Moreover, the Commission made inadequate findings of                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact and failed to comply with its obligation to state
     reasons within the meaning of Article 253 EC.
                                                                        The application is based on the following grounds:
     Infringement of substantive law
— The Commission applied the concept of reduction of                    The Commission, after its resignation, no longer had jurisdic-
     capacity within the meaning of Article 10a(2)(c) of Direc-         tion to adopt the decision, since its powers were limited to
     tive 90/684/EEC(1) wrongly in law and contrary to its own          current and urgent business.
     previous decision-making practice as meaning a restriction
     of production. The provision is correctly to be understood,
     however, as meaning that only the technical installations
     of a shipyard are to be restricted, regardless of actual           On 8 July 1999, the date when the decision was discussed and
     production. Moreover, by the departure from previous               voted on, the Commission was irregularly composed, since
     practice the principles of protection of legitimate expec-         Commission President Santer and Commissioner Bonino
     tations, equal treatment and proportionality were                  should no longer have been allowed to take part in the
     infringed.                                                         session, following their election to the European Parliament.
                                                                        In addition, Commissioner Bangemann had been wrongly
                                                                        ‘suspended’ by the Commission and excluded from the session.
— In addition, the Commission unlawfully based its decision
     on the total amount of aid approved, without ascertaining
     the amount of aid actually granted.
                                                                        The Commission infringed the applicant’s right to a fair
                                                                        hearing by failing to give it an opportunity to comment either
(1) Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to          on the report of the Commission’s advisers, first consulting
    shipbuilding (OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 27), as amended by         limited, London, which was an essential basis of the reasons
    Council Directive 92/68/EEC of 20 July 1992 (OJ L 219 of            for the decision, or on the comments made by Bundesverband
    4.8.1992, p. 54).                                                   deutscher Banken.
                                                                        The Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons under
                                                                        Article 253 EC, since it did not explain the calculation it used
                                                                        of the return on the Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt (‘Wfa’)
                                                                        assets, nor showed that the other elements of Article 87(1) EC
                                                                        were present.
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Westdeutsche
Landesbank Girozentrale against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                The decision infringes Article 87(1) EC because it extends the
                                                                        concept of aid too far, by applying the principle of the capital
                        (Case T-228/99)                                 investor acting in market-economy conditions, developed for
                                                                        cases of restructuring, without differentiation to the applicant,
                                                                        which is a profitable undertaking. In the decision the Com-
                          (2000/C 6/51)                                 mission moreover requires for the first time that the undertak-
                                                                        ing must achieve an average return for the sector rather than
                                                                        merely a reasonable return.
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               The Commission overlooks, contrary to its previous decision-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              making practice and to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the
European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Westdeutsche                 fact that private investors too are not focused exclusively on
Landesbank Girozentrale, of Düsseldorf, Germany, represented            achieving returns. The requirement of an at least average return
by Dr Frank Montag, of Freshfields Deringer, Cologne, with an           discriminates against public undertakings and infringes the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse             guarantee of the right to property in Article 295 EC.
May, 31 Grand’Rue.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The Commission applies the principle — which it misunder-
                                                                        stands — of the capital investor acting in market-economy
1. Annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2265 fin. of 8 July                conditions incorrectly and arrives at illusory figures for returns
     1999 concerning a measure taken by the Federal Republic            for the Wfa assets.
     of Germany in favour of Westdeutsche Landesbank Giro-
     zentrale;
                                                                        The Commission wrongly assumes that the risk profile of the
2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Wfa assets is comparable economically with share capital.


title: Case T-329/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels Midland Company against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 84/62                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the defendant, as communi-             —     annul the applicant’s staff report for 1995-1997 inas-
      cated to her by letters of 13 February 2001 and 23 Febru-                much as it does not take account of the opinion of the ad
      ary 2001, to apply an age limit set at 65 years to freelance             hoc working party, the ad hoc appeals joint working party
      interpreters and therefore to apply that age limit to her;               and the staff reports Joint Committee, in that it does not
                                                                               assess his duties as a trade union representative and his
                                                                               status as an elected member as being part of the duties
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection of the                      which he is required to undertake in his institution;
      applicant’s complaint by the Commission on 7 September
      2001, received on 10 September 2001;                               —     make an order as to costs requiring the defendant to pay
                                                                               the costs and fees incurred.
—     find that the applicant may continue to work as freelance
      interpreter, for the Community institutions, beyond the
      age of 65;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-
      ally assessed at 1 euro;
                                                                         The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the
                                                                         rejection of his complaint seeking the annulment of his staff
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          report for 1995-1997.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, he claims that certain assessments
                                                                         are not justified and that his professional situation and his
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          career development were adversely affected following his
                                                                         election to a local staff committee and as a result of his union
                                                                         activities. He alleges psychological harassment or mobbing
                                                                         intended to restrict his freedom of association, infringement of
In support of her arguments, the applicant relies on the same            the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
pleas in law as those put forward in T-153/01 Mercedes                   Regulations and breach of the principle of sound adminis-
Alvarez Moreno v Commission (OJ 2001 C 275, p. 11).                      tration.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef                    Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
    against Commission of the European Communities                                              pean Communities
                                                                                (Case T-329/01)
                         (Case T-326/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/115)
                         (2002/C 84/114)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Archer
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Daniels Midland Company, represented by Professor Carl Otto
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio                      Lenz, Ms Lynda Martin Alegi, Mr Edward William Batchelor
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                and Ms Marta Garcia of Baker & McKenzie, London (United
bourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.                           Kingdom).
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/63
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              ings;
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  —     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                      EuroCommerce in the present proceedings.
      tains to ADM at least to the extent that it finds ADM was
      party to an infringement after 4 October 1994;
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                Pleas in law and main arguments
      tains to ADM;
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
      pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce           The applicant is an international association with as its aim
      the fine imposed on ADM therein;                                  the research into and solution of problems concerning trade.
                                                                        The applicant has lodged in this respect several complaints
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the               with the Commission regarding the non-tariff rules and the
      proceedings.                                                      multilateral interchange fees used by payment card organis-
                                                                        ations. The multilateral interchange fee is paid by the acquiring
                                                                        bank (the merchant’s bank) to the issuing bank (the customer’s
                                                                        bank). This fee has, according to the applicant, a direct
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         influence on the fee that a merchant has to pay to his acquiring
                                                                        bank for the use of payment cards for payment by his
                                                                        customers. The non-tariff rules are a set of rules concerning
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those raised              the issuing and acquiring of payment cards.
in case T-322/01 Roquette Frères/Commission
                                                                        The Commission decided, in the contested decision, that there
                                                                        was no need for any action under Article 81 EC Treaty with
                                                                        regard to the non-tariff rules. According to the applicant, this
                                                                        decision violates both the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement.
Action brought on 27 December 2001 by EuroCommerce
A.I.S.B.L. against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Commission did not respect its
                                                                        right to be heard. In its comments on the second letter sent
                        (Case T-336/01)                                 under Article 6 of Commission Regulation 2842/98, the
                                                                        applicant made a conditional withdrawal of its complaints, in
                                                                        the belief that the Commission would prohibit the multilateral
                        (2002/C 84/116)                                 interchange fee. This fee, according to the applicant, is closely
                                                                        intertwined with the non-tariff rules. Later, the Commission
                  (Language of the case: English)                       changed its opinion on this point. According to the applicant,
                                                                        however, it had then no opportunity to give its comments.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Furthermore, the applicant claims that there has been a
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by EuroCom-                    violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
merce A.I.S.B.L., represented by Mr Pierre V. F. Bos and Mr             sound administration, in that the Commission failed to
Morten Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).              consider the non-tariff rules and the multilateral interchange
                                                                        fees together. According to the applicant, they should have
                                                                        been considered together in order to establish whether or not
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             they have a detrimental effect on competition. The Com-
                                                                        mission has cleared the non-tariff rules in the contested
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001               decision and has the intention of clearing the multilateral
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC                interchange fee. The applicant, however, states that these
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  aspects are closely intertwined and that their joint effect on
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International);                             competition should have been investigated.


title: Case C-504/03: Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 21/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Spanish authorities have failed to fulfil the obligations
                                                                           deriving from Directive 64/221/EEC since, having established
                                                                           that the persons concerned are included in the SIS reporting
1.    Declare that (i) by rejecting a visa application for the             list and that they are covered by Community law, they
      entry into Spanish territory of two persons, both nationals          concluded automatically, and without carrying out an individ-
      of third countries (or of non-member countries), who are             ual assessment, that entry into Spanish territory and the visa
      members of a family of citizens of the European Union,               application had to be refused, and failed to carry out the
      on the sole ground that they are included in the national            necessary checks to ascertain whether that inclusion in the
      reporting list in the Schengen Information System of                 reporting list was well-founded as regards the requirements of
      persons not to be permitted entry (at the request of a               Community law.
      Member State) and, (ii) for failing to give adequate reasons
      for the refusal of the visa applications and entry, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under          (1) OJ, English Special Edition Series I, Chapter 1963-1964, p. 117.
      Articles 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Directive 64/221/EEC of
      25 February 1964 (1) on the co ordination of special
      measures concerning the movement and residence of
      foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public
      policy, public security or public health;
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-504/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (2004/C 21/50)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Directive 64/221/EEC constitutes the Community                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Novem-
implementing legislation on the movement and residence (for                ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
persons covered by Community law or citizens of a non-                     represented by J.-P. Keppenne and V. Di Bucci, acting as
member country who are members of a family of Community                    Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
citizens); it precludes the inclusion of those persons in the
national reporting list of citizens not to be permitted entry
pursuant to Article 96 of the Convention implementing the                  The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Schengen Agreement, since the result of inclusion is as a rule             the Court should:
that all the Member States which apply the Schengen acquis
must refuse the person concerned entry to their territory.                 1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                                period prescribed for that purpose the measures necessary
                                                                                to ensure reimbursement by Bull of the cash advance,
                                                                                including interest, in accordance with Commission
                                                                                Decision 2003/599/EC concerning the cash advance
Access by a citizen of the Union or of a third country who is a                  granted by France to Bull (notified under document
family member of a Community citizen to the territory of a                       number C(2002) 4366) (1), the French Republic has failed
Member State may be refused entry on grounds of public                           to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of
policy only when the person concerned represents a present,                      Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of the decision;
genuine and sufficiently serious threat, affecting a fundamental
interest of society. Facts constituting a threat to public policy
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
within the usual Community law meaning (Directive 64/221/
EEC) cannot be treated in the same way as facts constituting
such a threat within the meaning of Article 96(2) of the
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. In the
present case, the inclusion in the Schengen Information System             Pleas in law and main arguments
(SIS) at the request of Germany cannot constitute on its own a
sufficient indication of a genuine and serious threat to public
policy, given that on one hand the grounds for that inclusion              The French Republic has not taken any measures to comply
are not known, and on the other hand the parties concerned                 with the decision of 13 November 2002 and has not informed
legally reside in the territory of a Member State, which                   the Commission in due time of any proposals for alternative
constitutes evidence that there is no threat of that kind.                 measures.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
The French Republic had confirmed its willingness to comply              Pleas in law and main arguments
with the decision of 13 November 2002. Nevertheless it failed
to submit evidence of the reimbursement by Bull, no later than
17 June 2003, of the cash advance of EUR 450 million,                    According to Article 7(6) and Article 19 of Directive 80/778/
including interest. The French Republic did not at any time              EEC, read in conjunction with Annex I to that directive, from
plead that it found it absolutely impossible to comply with the          15 July 1985 all water intended for human consumption in
decision. It took no action in relation to Bull with a view to           France must have a maximum nitrate concentration of less
obtaining reimbursement of the aid. Moreover, compliance                 than or equal to 50 mg/l.
with the decision did not present any particular difficulty,
since reimbursement had been agreed upon from the outset
between the Commission and the French Republic on the one
hand, and between the French Republic and Bull on the other              However, it appears from official publications that in 1988,
hand.                                                                    13 % of the total population of the region of Brittany were
                                                                         supplied with water which had, temporarily or permanently, a
                                                                         nitrate concentration of over 50 mg/l.
In addition the French Republic has allowed the period
prescribed to expire without bringing an action for annulment            On expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in its
of the decision, which must therefore be considered final                reasoned opinion, the French authorities admitted that that
against it.                                                              percentage, although it had decreased, was still 2,6 % in 2002.
(1) OJ 2003 L 209, p. 1.                                                 (1) OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11.
Action brought on 28 November 2003 by the Com-                           Action brought on 4 December 2003 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the French                   of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Republic                                                                lic of Germany
                         (Case C-505/03)                                                            (Case C-510/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/52)
                          (2004/C 21/51)
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-                ties on 4 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities, represented by J.C. Schieferer, with an address
represented by G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti, acting as             for service in Luxembourg.
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions
                                                                               impeding the placing on the market and putting into
1.   declare that, by failing to comply with the requirements                  service of appliances burning gaseous fuel which satisfy
     of the directive in relation to the nitrate content of                    the requirements of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of
     drinking water in Brittany, the French Republic has failed                29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(6) and Annex I of               Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous
     Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980, as                          fuels (1), in particular gas-fuelled water heaters, the Federal
     amended, relating to the quality of water intended for                    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     human consumption (1);                                                    under Article 4 of Directive 90/396/EEC;
2.   order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-19/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Innova Vital GmbH

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v Innova Vital GmbH
   (Case C-19/15)
   (2015/C 127/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

      Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that regulation apply also to nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications in advertisements for foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer if the commercial communication or advertisement is addressed exclusively to the professional sector?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods; OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.


title: Case C-155/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Articles 4, 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Tax legislation — Conditions for exemption from transfer tax on the first purchase of immoveable property — Exemption granted solely to persons residing in Greece and to persons of Greek origin not residing in Greece at the date of purchase)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-155/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC - Articles 4, 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Tax legislation - Conditions for exemption from transfer tax on the first purchase of immoveable property - Exemption granted solely to persons residing in Greece and to persons of Greek origin not residing in Greece at the date of purchase)
   2011/C 80/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and V. Karra, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Arts 18, 39 and 43 EC — Exemption from transfer tax on the purchase of a first property — Exemption solely for persons already resident in the country and for Greek citizens who do not reside there when the property is purchased

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by granting exemption from the tax on the transfer of immovable property, under Article 1(1) and (3), first subparagraph, of Law 1078/1980, solely to persons permanently resident in Greece, whilst non-residents who intend to settle in Greece in the future are not granted exemption from the tax, and

                           —

                           by granting, on certain conditions, exemption from the tax solely to Greek nationals or persons of Greek origin on the purchase of a first residence in Greece,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and under Articles 4, 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 June 1996 in Case T-111/94: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfer of part of an official's emoluments in the currency of a Member State other than the country in which the institution has its seat - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 210/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             post of Deputy Director-General of Directorate-General I A
                       of 11 June 1996                               ( External Political Relations ) and, second, for annulment of
                                                                     the appointment of Mr B. to that post — the Court of First
in Case T-111/94: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff v.                       Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
        Commission of the European Communities ( l )                 President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
(Officials — Transfer ofpart ofan official's emoluments in           Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
the currency of a Member State other than the country in             judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which it:
     which the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
                          ( 96/C 210/34 )
                                                                     1 , dismisses the action;
              (Language of tbe case: Spanish)
                                                                     2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-111 /94 : Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an official
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and
Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Amparo Alcover San Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
Carlos Gômez de la Cruz ) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision rejecting the complaint
concerning the transfer of part of the applicant's
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
emoluments to a home-purchase savings account in Danish
crowns , second, for a declaration recognizing the                                          of 11 June 1996
applicant's entitlement to such a transfer and, third,               in Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan v. European
damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),                                       Parliament ( 1 )
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.            (Officiais — Household allowance — Allowance paid from
Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     another source — Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
it :                                                                                96/C 210/36 )
1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                           (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      In Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan, an official of the
                                                                     European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
(>) O ] No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert
                                                                     1er, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and
                                                                    Jannis Pantalis, assisted by Alex Bonn ) — application for
                                                                     annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                     29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
                                                                     applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                     household allowance paid from another source from 1 June
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1987' — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
                       of 11 June 1996                               composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.
in Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia v.                       Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
                                                                     it :
  (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Grade A 1 post)
                          ( 96/C 210/35 )
                                                                     1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                          29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
               (Language of the case: French)                             applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                          household allowance paid from another source from
In Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia , an official of              1 June 1987';
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SÀRL, 1 rue Glesener, v .
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                    (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall , assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision rejecting the application of the applicant for the


title: Case T-39/07: Action brought on 6 February 2007 — ENI v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/45

         Action brought on 6 February 2007 — ENI v Commission
   (Case T-39/07)
   (2007/C 82/97)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: ENI SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: Prof. G.M. Roberti and I Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul that part of the contested decision which holds the applicant responsible for the conduct that is being penalised;

               —

               annul or reduce the fine imposed under Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against the same decision that is contested in Case T-38/07 Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission.
   ENI considers the contested decision to be unlawful in that it imputes liability to it solely on the ground of its role as the head of the group which controls the entire share capital of the company that has been held liable for the alleged collusion complained of. In those circumstances, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the Commission has based its decision essentially on an a presumption of strict liability connected to ownership structure that is not borne out and is contrary to the principles laid down by practice and in Community case-law relating to the application of Article 81 EC in connection with groups of companies. Such an approach also breaches the basic principle that liability and penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of legality, being the result of clear errors of assessment of the factual material provided by ENI to rebut the Commission's presumption. In this connection, the Commission failed properly to state the reasons for its assessment, in breach of the requirement laid down in Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

               —

               moreover, the contested decision does not even take into account the principle of the limited liability of capital companies to be found in company law that is common to the laws of all the Member States, to international legal practice and to Community law itself, an approach which, at the same time, appears to be inconsistent with the criteria laid down for the implementation of Community competition rules in cases involving succession/transfer. The contested decision similarly fails totally to provide reasons in respect of those issues.

         ENI therefore seeks the annulment of or, at least, a considerable reduction in the fine imposed, given that the Commission:

               —

               has failed to assess the impact on the market concerned of the offending conduct allegedly established;

               —

               improperly established the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement, referring, moreover, to decisions under Article 81 EC dating back many years which did not in any way concern the applicant, even by virtue of its role as head of a group.

               —

               moreover, by erroneously excluding Syndial from the addressees of the contested decision, contrary to the criteria laid down by case-law, infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, failing to take account of that company's turnover in that connection.


title: Case T-11/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Martins 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 — Martins v Commission
   (Case T-11/04) (1)

   (2008/C 197/62)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.