title: Case T-303/01: Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the ensuing damage, in particular those arising from the
      loss of Sickness Insurance cover and other non-material
      damage;                                                            —     annul the decision of the Commission not to take action
                                                                               on complaint No 1999/5330;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to take the following
                                                                               measures:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               1.    require the Government of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                not to implement the decision to alter the route
                                                                                followed by Subsection II (Ebro river crossing) of the
The applicant, a former official of the defendant institution, at                    Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona-
present retired, contests the withdrawal, with retrospective                         French border high speed line, known as Solución
effect, of family allowance in respect of a dependent daughter.                      Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B),
The contested measure is based on ‘evidence that the income                          declared environmentally viable by the Spanish
from gainful employment of [his] daughter exceeds 40 % of                            Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999 and
the basic salary of an official in Grade D 4/1’.                                     approved by way of resolution by the Secretary of
                                                                                State for Infrastructure and Transport of 17 March
                                                                                1999;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                               2.    further require the Kingdom of Spain to ensure that
—     unlawfulness of the act on the ground of misuse of
                                                                                those works be carried out using the only properly
      powers (lack and inadequacy of reasons, erroneous
                                                                                approved route adopted by resolution of the Sec-
      assumptions and distortion of the facts)
                                                                                retary of State for Town and Country Planning of
                                                                                24 February 1995 as Alternativa Norte (Northern
—     infringement of Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff                         Option); and
      Regulations
                                                                               3.    any other measure which in consequence of the
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination                                  preceding orders may be deemed appropriate,
                                                                                including a warning from the Commission to the
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and                         Spanish authorities that enforcement measures
      failure to protect acquired rights.                                            could be adopted in the absence of adequate com-
                                                                                pliance, including infringement proceedings and/or
                                                                                the withdrawal of European funding for the project.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento
de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   The applicant states that it is one of the municipal authorities
                                                                         affected by the route of the High Speed Madrid-Zaragoza-
                         (Case T-303/01)                                 French Border railway line, for which the Spanish Government
                                                                         obtained funding from the Community cohesion fund (Project
                                                                         No 95/11/65/007) (1). Initially, the Spanish administrative
                          (2002/C 44/46)                                 authorities approved the route for Subsection II of the
                                                                         Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible
                                                                         choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the ‘Northern Option’,
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar,
                                                                         a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value
                                                                         within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently,
                                                                         despite the report to the contrary drawn up by the competent
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                environmental authorities, the Spanish Government decided
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solución Sur
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntami-                    Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only
ento de Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza), Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza,               is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more
Spain), represented by Javier Ariño Barcelona, lawyer.                  expensive.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/27
On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government
not to implement the decision relating to the Solución Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt               —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of
for the ‘Northern Alternative’, and to warn it that, if it failed to             12 November 2001 (1);
comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned
(Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the
Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its                      —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
views known and, after examining the reply — to which the                        2001 (2), or in the alternative declare that Council Regu-
applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it                   lation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 is not
— the Commission decided to take no action on the case.                          applicable;
The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the
Commission, the Spanish Government’s measures amount to                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings
an infringement of Community law, namely of:                                     in an amount to be specified later.
—      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
       conservation of wild birds (2);
—      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
       conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
       flora (3); and
—      legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular
       Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994
       establishing a Cohesion Fund (4).                                   Three of the applicants are Swedish citizens of Somali origin
                                                                           and the fourth is a non-profitmaking association registered
                                                                           under Swedish law, which inter alia provides support for
The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant            refugees and has assisted with financial transactions between
infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as                residents of Sweden and residents of Somalia.
pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have
taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not
to take action must accordingly be annulled.
                                                                           On 15 October 1999 the United Nations Security Council
( 1) OJ 1998 C 153, p. 172.                                                adopted UNSCR Resolution 1267 (1999), calling for inter alia
( 2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.                                                  sanctions against the Taliban, which were extended by UNSCR
( 3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.                                                  Resolution 1333 (2000) to cover Osama Bin Laden and
( 4) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.                                                  persons and bodies associated with him. On 6 March 2001
                                                                           the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. Under
                                                                           Article 2 of that regulation all funds and other financial
                                                                           resources belonging to any natural or legal person, entity or
                                                                           body listed in Annex I are to be frozen. On the basis of
                                                                           Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 the Commission
                                                                           adopted Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001. As a result of the
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden                       amendment of its list by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
and Others against the Council of the European Union                       the Security Council, the Commission decided to add a number
     and the Commission of the European Communities                        of other persons and bodies to Annex I to Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001, including the applicants.
                          (Case T-306/01)
                           (2002/C 44/47)                                  The applicants submit that Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001 — which provides that the applicants’ funds are
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                       to be frozen and that resources are not to be made available to
                                                                           them — exceeds the powers which the Council has under
                                                                           Article 60 and 301 EC and is in breach of Article 249 EC. The
                                                                           Council does not have the power to adopt sanctions against
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                individuals and organisations and has misused its powers.
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Moreover, in practice, the Council and Commission have
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 delegated decisions as to which persons or organisations
10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others represented                  should be included in Annex I to the Taliban Sanctions
by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson.                                       Committee.


title: Case T-481/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Assessment of the written test — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Possibility for a selection board to entrust the marking of the written tests to one of its members — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/25

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission
   (Case T-481/16 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Assessment of the written test - Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list - Possibility for a selection board to entrust the marking of the written tests to one of its members - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 231/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: C.M. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/130/08, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to admit the applicant to take part in the oral tests and not to include her on the reserve list.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 14 September 2009 regarding the issue of the applicant’s admission to the oral tests in question.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 23 July 2009 maintaining the eliminatory mark of 18/40 in final written test (c) and refusing to admit Ms Cuallado Martorell to the oral stage of the competition.

               3.

               Ms Cuallado Martorell and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs in relation to the appeal proceedings before the General Court.

               4.

               Ms Cuallado Martorell shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal and before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-96/09, subsequently referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal, following an appeal, as Case F-96/09 RENV, and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case C-347/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Luxembourg) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Family benefits — Allowance for bringing up a family — ‘Elterngeld’  — ‘Kindergeld’  — Calculation of the supplementary allowance)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Luxembourg) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering
   (Case C-347/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Family benefits - Allowance for bringing up a family - ‘Elterngeld’ - ‘Kindergeld’ - Calculation of the supplementary allowance))
   2014/C 202/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Defendants: Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i), 4(1)(h) and 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160) — Concept of ‘family benefit’ — Worker residing in Germany and carrying out his profession in Luxembourg — Aggregation of rights to family benefits — Calculation of the differential allowance paid by Luxembourg — Account taken of the German education allowances ‘Elterngeld’ and ‘Kindergeld’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, and Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, for the purpose of calculating the supplementary allowance to which a migrant worker may be entitled in his or her Member State of employment, it is not possible to take account of all the family benefits received by the worker’s family under the legislation of the Member State of residence since, subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court, ‘Elterngeld’, provided for under German law, is not a benefit of the same kind, within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 1408/71, as ‘Kindergeld’, provided for under German law, or the family allowances provided for under Luxembourg law.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-519/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee concerning doping control — Incompatibility with the Community rules on competition and freedom to provide services — Complaint — Rejection)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland
   (Case C-519/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee concerning doping control - Incompatibility with the Community rules on competition and freedom to provide services - Complaint - Rejection)
   (2006/C 224/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen (represented by: J.-L. Dupont and M.-A. Lucas, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Bouquet, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: T Pynnä, Agent)

   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, dismissing as unfounded an application for annulment of a decision rejecting a complaint following a proceeding pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 of the EC Treaty — Anti-doping rules
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the action under No T-313/02 brought before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 August 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr Meca-Medina and Mr Majcen;

               3.

               Orders Mr Meca-Medina and Mr Majcen to pay the costs relating both to the present proceedings and to the proceedings brought before the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-200/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2014  — De Luca v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition — Dismissal of the appeal at first instance after it was referred back by the General Court — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional provisions — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2014 — De Luca v Commission
   (Case T-200/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition - Dismissal of the appeal at first instance after it was referred back by the General Court - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations))
   2014/C 202/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then S. Orlandi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV De Luca v Commission, not yet published, requesting that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Patrizia De Luca and the European Commission to each bear their own costs in the two proceedings before the General Court and in the two proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in the two proceedings before the General Court and in the two proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-700/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — TV1 v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of integrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services — Rejection of the tender of one tenderer — Contract awarded to another tenderer — Offer abnormally low — Obligation to request further clarification — Obligation to state reasons — Transparency — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — TV1 v Commission
   (Case T-700/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of integrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services - Rejection of the tender of one tenderer - Contract awarded to another tenderer - Offer abnormally low - Obligation to request further clarification - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 078/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TV1 GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: C. Scherer–Leydecker, J. Mey and A. Rausch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and M. Noll-Ehlers initially, then F. Moro and T. Maxian Rusche and, lastly, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Katsimerou, Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot No. 4, entitled ‘streaming, compression, hosting and content delivery’ in the call for tenders bearing reference PO/2014 — 03/A4 and concerning ‘[i]ntegrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services’, of the decision by which the Commission awarded that lot to the successful tenderer and of the contract for the supply of services concluded between the Commission and the successful tenderer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders TV1 GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-147/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/31

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen v Commission
   (Case T-147/07)
   (2007/C 155/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH (Neuhausen auf den Fildern, Germany) and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Itzen and K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators. In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicants and other undertakings on the ground of their participation in a cartel relating to the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Germany. In the view of the Commission, the undertakings concerned acted in breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Lack of competence on the part of the Commission in the absence of any significance at inter-State level of the local infringement of which the applicants are accused;

               —

               Absence of the conditions required to establish that the applicants bear joint and several liability with the companies hierarchically above them, inasmuch as they are legally and economically independent;

               —

               Disproportionate nature of the basic amounts taken into consideration in the calculation of the fine in comparison with the de facto market volume concerned;

               —

               Illegality of the deterrent multiplication factor as the applicants' turnover was the only relevant factor in the calculation of the fine and that turnover did not justify application of that multiplication factor;

               —

               Lack of justification for the repeat offender surcharge in the context of the fine calculation by reason of errors of law in the inclusion of previous fines and errors of appraisal;

               —

               Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inasmuch as, with regard to the upper fine limit of 10 % of the undertaking's turnover, the Commission based itself on the turnover of the concern and not on that of the applicants;

               —

               Legally defective application of the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines (2) inasmuch as insufficient account was taken of the added value provided by the cooperation of the applicants.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case T-475/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/54

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-475/07)
   (2008/C 51/99)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Makhteshim Agan International Coordination Center (Brussels, Belgium), Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos Ld.a (Funchal, Portugal), Finchimica SpA (Manerbio, Italy), Dow Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milano, Italy), Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United States), Dow AgroSciences GmbH (Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Makhteshim-Agan Poland sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Makhteshim-Agan (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan France SARL (Sevres, France), Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl (Bergamo, Italy), Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               Order the Commission to take such measures as are necessary to comply with the annulment of the contested decision in accordance with Article 233 EC, including, but not limited to, ordering it to request the Member State competent authorities to reinstate the relevant national trifluralin registrations withdrawn as a result of the contested decision, and extend any relevant deadlines as required to comply with the judgment of the Court.

               —

               Declare the illegality, and inapplicability to the applicants, of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including interest at 8 %.

               —

               Take such other or further measures as justice may require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (2).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission failed to base its decision on the report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and thereby misused its powers.
   The applicants further contend that the contested decision contains manifest errors of appraisal in that the Commission:

               —

               failed to take all the available scientific evidence into account as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414;

               —

               failed to extend the relevant deadlines although the circumstances and criteria for the assessment of trifluralin changed during the review process;

               —

               did not have a scientific justification for its findings;

               —

               lacked competence to assess trifluralin under Regulation 850/2004 (3) and, in any event, erred in its assessment.

         Moreover, the applicants allege that the contested decision does not comply with the applicable legislative procedures and that the Commission and EFSA infringed Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation 451/2000 (4) by not complying with the procedural deadlines, which according to the applicants amounts to a breach of an essential procedural requirement.
   Finally, the applicants submit that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned in violation of Article 253 EC and that it infringes the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non-retroactivity, the protection of the applicants' legitimate expectations and their right to be heard.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 7).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25).


title: Action brought on 20 April 1998 by Giuliana Gaspari against the European Parliament (Case T-66/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/41
wheat delivered by the applicant at the prices agreed in               grounds or by an insufficient statement of grounds. At
February 1993.                                                         no time during the pre-litigation procedure was the
                                                                       applicant informed, either directly or indirectly
(1) Case C-357/93 (subsequently Case T-494/93), OJ C 231,              through her doctor, of the precise medical reasons on
    27.8.1993, p. 10.                                                  which the administrative decision taken with respect
                                                                       to her was based, despite her request for such
                                                                       information, nor, as a consequence, was she in a
                                                                       position to put her point of view on the findings and
                                                                       conclusions of the medical officer and, if necessary, to
                                                                       dispute their substance.
Action brought on 20 April 1998 by Giuliana Gaspari                Ð Infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention
               against the European Parliament                         on Human Rights, in that the applicant never
                        (Case T-66/98)                                 authorised the medical officer of the office responsible
                                                                       for settling claims in Luxembourg to seek the opinion
                         (98/C 209/86)
                                                                       of the doctors expressly mentioned in the explicit
                                                                       decision rejecting her request and, in particular, to
                (Language of the case: French)                         pass on to them any information whatsoever regarding
                                                                       her state of health.
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 April 1998 by Giuliana Gaspari
residing in Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented by Jean
NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Action brought on 20 April 1998 by Theodore
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30,            Giannakopoulos against the Commission of the European
Rue de Cessange.                                                                            Communities
                                                                                (Case T-67/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (98/C 209/87)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision of 26 August 1997 by the office
     responsible for settling claims not to grant to the
     applicant the prior authorisation necessary for               An action against the Commission of the European
     reimbursement of the expenses of the treatment at a           Communities was brought before the Court of First
     spa prescribed by her doctor,                                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 April 1998
                                                                   by Theodore Giannakopoulos, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Jean NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
                                                                   Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Between 1990 and 1995 the applicant underwent six
courses of treatment at a spa because of her health
problems. On 8 March 1996 she submitted a request for              Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to take
prior authorisation for a further course of treatment at a             account of medical certificates justifying the absence
spa. Although that treatment had been deemed to be                     of the applicant on the grounds of sickness from
necessary and indispensible, her request was refused                   17 July to 30 September 1997,
without any grounds being given. On 5 June 1997 the
applicant submitted a further request for prior
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of 12 May 1997, and, as far as
authorisation on the basis of a medical certificate of 3 June
                                                                       necessary, that of 18 April of that year, granting the
1997 from her rheumatologist. By the contested decision
                                                                       applicant leave on personal grounds from 1 August to
the office responsible for settling claims refused to grant
                                                                       30 September 1997,
the prior authorisation necessary for the reimbursement of
the expenses arising from this.
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay      the applicant the salary
                                                                       unlawfully withheld since 1     August 1997 together
She puts forward the following pleas in support of her                 with interest on the amount    in arrears calculated at
claims:                                                                8 % per annum from the         date due until actual
                                                                       payment,
Ð Violation of her right to a fair hearing in that the
     contested decision is vitiated by failure to state any        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-229/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro
   (Case C-229/16) (1)

   (2017/C 161/24)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case C-332/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/7
Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic                    With regard to arable crops and livestock premiums, it
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                   contends (sixth ground for annulment) that the Commission
                             munities                                  has exceeded the limits of its discretion in imposing the lump-
                                                                       sum deductions and that the principle of proportionality has
                                                                       been infringed.
                        (Case C-331/00)
                                                                       With regard to the 2 % deduction from the associations, it
                        (2000/C 355/12)                                contends (seventh ground for annulment) that the legislation
                                                                       has been misinterpreted and that the facts have been wrongly
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              assessed.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 September 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,             Finally, with regard to late payments, it contends (eighth
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State        ground for annulment) that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation
Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that           No 296/96 and Article 8 of Regulation No 729/70 have been
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,           misinterpreted.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
      C(2000) 1847 Final of 5 July 2000 excluding from
      Community financing certain expenditure incurred by              Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Kingdom
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the             of Belgium against Commission of the European Com-
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                                             munities
      (EAGGF), which has been published in the Official Journal
      of the European Communities as Decision No 2000/449/EC                                    (Case C-332/00)
      (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49).
                                                                                (2000/C 355/13)
Grounds for annulment and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 11 September
As regards arable crops and shortcomings of the integrated             2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Anni
administration and control system (IACS), the Hellenic Repub-          Snoecx, Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External
lic contends (first ground for annulment) that the facts               Trade and International Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an
have been assessed incorrectly and that the principle of               address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4
proportionality has been infringed. So far as concerns, in             Rue des Girondins.
particular, the alphanumeric identification system, Article 4 of
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 has been misinterpreted.                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
With regard to arable crops and poor quality of checks and             1.    Declare the application admissible and well founded;
supervision, the Hellenic Republic submits (second ground for
annulment) that the facts have been assessed incorrectly.              2.    Annul the European Commission decision of 5 July 2000
                                                                             amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
With regard to livestock premiums and, more specifically,                    expenditure for 1995 (1) of the Guarantee Section of the
failure to implement and complete the IACS, it contends (third               European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
ground for annulment) that the correction of 10 % is mistaken                (EAGGF), to the extent to which it excludes from
and unjustified.                                                             Community financing expenditure of BEF 50 763 827
                                                                             incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in connection with
With regard to late payments (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96),                   aid relating to the sale at reduced price of butter and the
it submits (fourth ground for annulment) that the financial                  grant of aid for concentrated butter and cream intended
correction proposed is unjustified and that the principle of                 for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and
proportionality has been infringed.                                          other food products, and partially annul the European
                                                                             Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from
                                                                             Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
With regard to late payment (Regulation (EC) No 1357/96), it                 the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
submits (fifth ground for annulment) that the second para-                   European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
graph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1357/96 has been                         the financial years 1996 and 1997, in so far as it excludes
misinterpreted and that the facts have been assessed incor-                  from Community financing expenditure in the sum of
rectly.                                                                      EUR 1 602 256,45 and EUR 31 883,22 incurred by the
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
     Kingdom of Belgium in connection with aid relating to             —     Breach of Article 2 EC and of article 10 EC: the
     the sale at reduced price of butter and the grant of aid                Commission has rendered devoid of purpose the pro-
     for concentrated butter and cream intended for the                      cedure before the conciliation body by taking part therein
     manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other food                on a strictly formal basis, that is to say without meeting
     products (2);                                                           the representatives of Belgium and without giving the
                                                                             real reasons for the contested decisions.
3.   Order the Commission of the European Communities to               —     Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     pay the costs.                                                          expectations: the, Commission relies essentially on the
                                                                             one of the grounds of the decision delivered on 13 July
                                                                             1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                             Communities in a case 5 in which Regulation No 570/88
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                       was not even at issue.
—    Lack of any legal basis for the contested decisions:              (1) OJ L 1999 L 61, p. 37.
     Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                       (2) Decision 2000/448/EC and 2000/449/EC: OJ 2000 L 180, pp. 46
     No 570/88 (3) lays down the conditions for aid for the                and 49.
     use of butter for the manufacture of pastry products or           (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988
     ice-cream: the butter must, in the Member State of                    on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for
     manufacture, comply with the definition and classifi-                 butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of
                                                                           pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (OJ L 55,
     cation appearing in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC)               1.3.1988, p. 31).
     No 985/68 of the Council (4), that is to say it must be           (4) Regulation (EEC) No 985/68 of the Council of 15 July 1968
     graded ‘beurre de marque de contrôle’ in the case of                  laying down general rules for intervention on the market in butter
     Belgian butter. The Commission is wrong to contend that               and cream (OJ, English Special Edition, 68(I) p. 56).
     the conditions laid down by Article 1(3)(a) of Regulation
     No 985/68 (manufacture of butter from inter alia sour or
     sweet cream) were nevertheless applicable because they
     gave a general definition of butter and the two conditions
     were applied cumulatively under earlier rules. As a result
     of the classification ‘beurre de laiterie: qualité extra’
     adopted on 28 February 1994 by the Belgian authorities,
     the technologically adapted butter (‘BITA’) of the com-
     pany Corman, which until then benefited from the aid
     provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 570/88,          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
     started to benefit from Community aid under Article 1 of          Social no 3, Orense, by order of that court of 17 July 2000
     Regulation No 570/88, without any change having taken             in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     place in the applicable Community rules or any change             Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorerı́a General de
     having been made to the product in question.                                              la Seguridad Social
                                                                                (Case C-347/00)
     The conditions for the application of Articles 2 and 3
     of Regulation No 729/70, namely the existence of
     irregularities or negligence, are certainly not fulfilled in                                (2000/C 355/14)
     this case because the interpretation given to the rules by
     Belgium, even if it were to be considered incorrect —
     which is not the case — is attributable above all to breach       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     of the principle of legal certainty as a result of action         European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     taken by the Commission itself.                                   (Social Court) no 3, Orense, Spain, of 17 July 2000, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 20 September 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity and the settled        Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National Social Security
     case law of the Court of Justice concerning the residual          Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social (General
     powers of the Member States where Community harmon-               Social Security Fund) on the following questions:
     isation is not complete and all-embracing, Belgium remai-
     ned competent to define what it might grade as ‘beurre            1.    Must Article 1(r) and (s) [of Council Regulation No
     de marque de contrôle’.                                                 1408/71] be interpreted as meaning that periods of
                                                                             notional, equivalent contribution, which may be taken
                                                                             into account under the legislation of a Member State for
—    Breach of the principle of proportionality: the aid received            the purpose of determining the number of years of
     by Corman is of the same amount, whether on the basis                   contribution by reference to which the amount of old-
     of the allegedly unlawful Article 1 or on the basis of                  age pension is determined under domestic legislation, are
     Article 9a of Regulation No 570/88, this being accepted                 also to be considered from a legal viewpoint as ‘periods
     by the Commission of the European Communities.                          of insurance’?


title: Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Euroc AB against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-71/95)

text:
No C 137/28          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Euroc AB against                 2 . order the Commission to make a fresh decision, taking
       the Commission of the European Communities                          into account the legal opinion of the Court, on the
                        ( Case T-71/95 )                                   application by Germany of 2 May 1994 for a decision by
                                                                           the Commission concerning the repayment or remission
                          ( 95/C 137/65 )                                  of import or export duties .
                 (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
1995 by Euroc AB, represented by Nicholas Forwood Q.C.                 The applicant, a German limited liability company which
and John Cook with an address for service in Luxembourg                markets aluminium and imports it on an occasional basis,
at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,              challenges the Commission Decision of 14 November 1994
BP39, L-2101 Luxembourg.                                               refusing remission of duty on the importation of aluminium
                                                                       from Yugoslavia.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission Decision of 20 November                         Im May and June 1990, the applicant imported certain
     1994 ( J ) wholly or alternatively in part in so far as it        quantities of aluminium, having agreed with the Yugoslav
     relates to the applicant,                                         exporter that the latter would bear all duties that might be
                                                                       levied, and would do so by means of a reduction in the sale
— cancel, or alternatively reduce, the fine imposed by                 price . The competent German customs authority cleared the
     Article 9 , and                                                   aluminium for free circulation without charging duty, and
                                                                       on the basis of that determination, which was neither
                                                                       provisional nor subject to verification, the applicant paid the
— award the cost of the application to the applicant.
                                                                       sale price to the Yugoslav importer without deduction.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       After receiving two demands in May and July 1992 for the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               back payment of customs duty, the applicant attempted —
raised in case T-70/95 .
                                                                       unsuccessfully, because of the civil war which had just
                                                                       broken out in Yugoslavia — to contact the Yugoslav
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 to 158 .                       exporter . The reason given for the back payment demands
                                                                       was that the aluminium in question had been imported after
                                                                       the exhaustion of a customs quota granted to Yugoslavia
                                                                       and the consequent reintroduction of the Common
                                                                       Customs Tariff.
Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Giinzler Aluminium                   The applicant pleads the existence of 'special circumstances'
GmbH against the Commission of the European                            within the meaning of Article 13 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                           Communities                                 No 1430/79 , arguing that the reason it did not deduct the
                        ( Case T-75/95 )                               amount corresponding to the duties owed was the initial
                                                                       determination by the German customs authorities.
                          ( 95/C 137/66 )
                 (Language of the case: German)                        Moreover, the two demands for payment of back duty were
                                                                       issued, respectively, one year after and two years after the
An action against the Commission of the European                       publication in the Official Journal of the reintroduction of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      the Common Customs Tariff. Since the applicant carried
Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1995 by                out import transactions on an occasional basis only, it could
Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, of Ostfildern ( Germany),                     not be expected to have greater knowledge and practical
represented by Jiirgen Strauss ( Rechtsanwalt) of Stuttgart            experience than the authorities competent for the area in
( Germany ).                                                           question.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 . annul      Commission      Decision      REM      16/94   of
      14 November 1994 ;


title: Case C-109/13: Action brought on 6 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/13

         Action brought on 6 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-109/13)
   2013/C 123/21
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and I. Koskinen acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 2(1), (2), (5), (7), (8), (9), (11), (13), (14), (17), (18), (19), (21), (22), (24), (28) — (35); Article 3(5)(a) and (9)(c); Article 9(1), (2), (3), (7), (9), (10) and (12); Articles 10 and 11; Article 12(d) and (h); Articles 13 and 14; the second and third sentences of Article 16(1), (2) and (3); Articles 17 to 23; Article 25(1); the third and fourth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), the second and fourth sentences of Article 26(2)(d) and (3); Article 29; Article 35(4) and (5); Article 36(a) — (e), (g) and (j); Article 37(1)(b) to (u), (3), (4)(b) and (d), (5) and (9); Article 38(1); Article 39(1), (4) and (8); Article 40(1),(2), (3), (6) and (7); and points 6 and 8 in Annex I(1)(a), (d), (f) and (j) Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC into national law, both with respect to mainland Finland and the province of Åland, or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Finland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 32 140,00 which is to be applied from the day on which the judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.


title: Case T-341/02: Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay             Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
      those incurred by the applicants.                                  Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-341/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 7/49)
SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned                              (Language of the case: Italian)
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.
                                                                         the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a               The applicant claims that the Court should:
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of              —     annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is                tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
no means of challenging the common position in question                        Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular              No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the                     European Communities to pay the costs
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,            The contested decision, which concerns the major project
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely              ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-              from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
ledge of the other three. Moreover, it would appear that                 the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to                instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not the other measures,                      of the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter                  concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
measures, although they are, in formal terms, common                     contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of             to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.                           In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
                                                                         following arguments:
The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence           —     The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
and of the obligation to provide reasons.                                      to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
                                                                               Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
                                                                               in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
                                                                               adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.                                           by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.                                             eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.                                            whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
                                                                               was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
                                                                               within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
                                                                               respect of which the costs were incurred.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.1.2003
—    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 24                  completion or functionality of the works. Those require-
     and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December                   ments were introduced in the closure proposal of
     1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regu-                     22 December 2001, whilst the works were in full progress
     lation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of                     and the managers responsible had already submitted the
     the activities of the different Structural Funds between               relevant certificates. The contested decision then sets out
     themselves and with the operations of the European                     an interpretation of the functionality of the works which,
     Investment Bank and the other existing financial instru-               even though more favourable than that set out in the
     ments as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/                  closure proposal, departs from the rules originally laid
     93 of 20 July 1993 ( 1).                                               down for the eligibility for Community cofinancing of
                                                                            the costs incurred.
—    The actions at issue are contradictory and infringe the
     principle of protection of legitimate expectation. It is
     submitted in this regard that, for the purposes of the           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to state
                                                                      reasons.
     decisions of 28 July 1995 cited above, the costs incurred
     prior to 31 December 1997 could benefit from
     cofinancing without containing any reference to the              (1 ) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1 and OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20 respectively.


title: Case C-133/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the Roosendaal Customs district

text:
15.6.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     a)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
                                                                                and
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
      incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-                        b)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
      barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the                             acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
      respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance                             extracts of tea?
      that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
      pending before the Court — they would make him a
      binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not                 2)    Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
      entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that                    12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
      the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First                     goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
      Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the                   p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
      appellant had not been officially informed of his legal                       points 2 and 3 of the Annex?
      rights.
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-                (2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.
      ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
      for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
      respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
      of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
      proceedings.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
    general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
    of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products               (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
    sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).                                            of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
                                                                                against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                                (Case C-133/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/36)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               München                                        European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
                                                                              (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                              Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
                           (Case C-130/02)                                    Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
                           (2002/C 144/35)                                    Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:
                                                                              Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) thereof, provide the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-                       tariff information where they change the position adopted in
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at                  it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling                  applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                        even where the change is made within the six-year period
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                        referred to?
München on the following questions:
1)    Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of                           establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
      6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation                       19.10.1992, p. 1.).
      (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
      ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
      p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of


title: Case T-82/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/35

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission
   (Case T-82/08)
   (2008/C 107/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Guardian Industries Corp. (Auburn Hills, United States) and Guardian Europe Sàrl (Dudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery. C. Eggers and H.-G. Kamann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul Article 1 of the contested decision in accordance with the pleas outlined in Sections A.1 and A.2;

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision No C(2007) 5791 final (Case COMP/39.165 — Flat glass), of 28 November 2007, as notified to them on 3 December 2007, by which the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by participating, from 20 April 2004 to 22 February 2005 in a complex set of agreements and/or concerted practices coveting the whole of the EEA.
   According to the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled and the fine imposed on them adjusted accordingly, since it is vitiated by the following grave errors:

               (i)

               the Commission's failure to adduce precise and consistent evidence that the applicants participated in the cartel operated by three incumbent glass producers before the 11 February 2005 meeting;

               (ii)

               the Commission's unsubstantiated assertion that, at that meeting, the applicants entered into agreements that extended across the EEA.

         In addition, the applicants ask the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to further reduce their fine. On this basis they claim, first, that without reasoning, in a departure from its own consistent position and in a clear violation of the Court's established case-law, the Commission allegedly excluded one billion euros of captive sales from the calculation of the other addressees' fines, thereby vastly overstating the applicants' market position and, second, that the Commission ignored the applicants' substantially limited passive role in the infringement compared to the other participants' long-lasting efforts to cartelise flat glass sales in Europe, and their attempts to enlist the applicants in those efforts.


title: Case T-331/17: Action brought on 23 May 2017 — Steifer v EESC

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/53

         Action brought on 23 May 2017 — Steifer v EESC
   (Case T-331/17)
   (2017/C 231/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Guy Steifer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 21 October 2002 of the Director of Human and Financial Resources of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request of 2 October 2002 for reimbursement, together with applicable interest, of the part of his Belgian pension rights not credited on transfer to the Community pension scheme;

               —

               Annul the notice of assessment of the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension, determined by Decision No 360/03 A of 15 December 2003, insofar as it ruled out or failed to provide for reimbursement of periodic annuity payments corresponding to his retirement pension which are paid by the Office national des pensions (National Pensions Office; ‘ONP’) of the Kingdom of Belgium to the bank account of the EESC as from 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights;

               —

               Order the EESC to reimburse the applicant the amount of the periodic annuity payments paid by the ONP to the EESC since 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights, together with late-payment interest at the rate set by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two points, from the date on which those reimbursements ought to have been made until payment in full;

               —

               Order the EESC to reimburse the applicant each month the amount of the periodic annuity payments to be paid in the future by the ONP to the bank account of the EESC;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment of the European Union, the right to property and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials interpreted in the light of its objectives, insofar as the contested decisions rule out or fail to provide for the applicant to be entitled to reimbursement of the amount of his national pension which has not contributed to the establishment of his pension from the European Union.


title: Case T-299/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  18 November 2005  — Selmani v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Council common positions — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Action for annulment — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Time-limits — Admissibility)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Selmani v Council and Commission
   (Case T-299/04) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Council common positions - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Time-limits - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 48/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Abdelghani Selmani (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: C. Ó Briain, Solicitor)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Brown, Agents)
   Application for
   primarily, annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restricted measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant,
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-258/04: Action brought on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/21

         Action brought on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-258/04)
   (2004/C 251/39)
   Language of the case: Polish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland, represented by Jarosław Pietras, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare invalid Articles 5, 6(1), (2) and (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8);

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   With regard to Article 5 of Regulation No 60/2004 the applicant raises the following heads of complaint:

               —

               infringement of the principle of the free movement of goods through the introduction of customs duties in the amount of a customs rate applicable erga omnes and exceeding the level of customs rates in force during the period prior to Poland's accession to the European Union;

               —

               lack of competence on the Commission's part and breach of Articles 22 and 41, first paragraph, and Part 5 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (1) through the adoption of measures altering the conditions defined in that Act for the adoption by the Republic of Poland of the rules governing the customs union and through the inclusion by the contested provision of products that are not covered by the Common Agricultural Policy;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality by reason of the adoption of measures providing for treatment of persons from Poland that differs from that of persons from the Community of 15 States who are in a comparable position;

               —

               breach of a fundamental procedural requirement by virtue of the inadequate reasoning of the measures adopted;

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by reason of the introduction of a method, at variance with the conditions laid down in the abovementioned Act of Accession, of dealing with products which were in temporary storage on 1 May 2004, were covered by customs procedures or were in transit within the enlarged Community, and in particular by reason of the introduction of customs duties exceeding the level of customs rates in force during the period prior to Poland's accession to the European Union.

         With regard to Article 6(1) and (2) of Regulation No 60/2004, the applicant argues that the Commission lacked competence and that there has been a breach of Article 22, the first paragraph of Article 41 and Part 4 of Annex IV to the abovementioned Act of Accession, in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) — to the extent to which the contested provisions provide for account to be taken by the Commission of processed products containing sugar (sugar equivalent) when determining the existence of surplus quantities of sugar and isoglucose and impose a prohibition on the elimination of surplus quantities of sugar and isoglucose by way of exportation of processed products containing sugar (sugar equivalent).
   With regard to Articles 6(3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Regulation No 60/2004, the applicant alleges infringement of the principles of solidarity and good faith in relations between the Member States and the Community institutions (Article 10 EC) by reason of the imposition on Poland, through the contested measures, of obligations with which it is in practice not possible to comply, and by reason of the refusal to cooperate with a view to overcoming difficulties which have arisen.
   With regard to all of the contested provisions of Regulation No 60/2004, the applicant argues that the Commission abused its powers by adopting measures the real objective of which is not to facilitate Poland in adopting the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy but rather to protect the market of the Community of 15 States against competition from Polish agricultural producers.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1, as subsequently amended.


title: Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-353/98)

text:
C 340/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
    4. The vehicles in respect of which aid has been                 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
        granted under the plan account for less than 0,5 %           Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Laura
        of the total number of Spanish industrial vehicles           Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
        and for a minuscule proportion of the total                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        number of such vehicles in Europe.                           Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    5. 81 % of recipients of aid who have acquired
        vehicles having a greater tonnage (types A and E)            The Commission of the European Communities claims
        possess only one vehicle of that category, and 97 %          that the Court should:
        have less than 5 vehicles. The undertakings
        concerned are thus very small.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed periods to
                                                                          adopt or, at all events, to communicate the laws,
Ð Infringement of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:                      regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                          order to comply with Council Directives 95/18/EC (1)
    The Kingdom of Spain maintains that there are                         and 95/19/EC (2), respectively, the licensing of railway
    reasons relating to environmental protection and road                 undertakings and the allocation of railway
    safety which justify the application in the present case              infrastructure capacity and the charging of
    of the provisions of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty,               infrastructure fees, the French Republic has failed to
    and that the measures proposed will clearly have a                    fulfil its obligations under those directives;
    positive effect in those two areas, without any increase
    in capacity.
                                                                     Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
    expectations:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    The time which elapsed following the submission of
    each request for information (3 periods of total silence         Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    on the part of the Commission, respectively lasting 4            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
    months, 7 months and 3 months) prompted the logical              upon the Member States to which they are addressed. The
    and legitimate conclusion that the Commission had no             Member States' obligations in that regard include the
    objection whatever to the measures laid down in the              obligation to comply with the time-limits laid down by the
    Plan Renove Industrial. Furthermore, although the                directives in question. In the present case, the time-limit
    Commission on one occasion gave notice that it might             expired on 27 June 1997, but the French Republic has
    have to adopt a provisional decision requiring the               failed to adopt or, at all events, to communicate the
    Spanish authorities to suspend payment of the aid in             requisite measures.
    issue, it never imposed any such requirement. The
    legitimate expectation referred to above gave rise to a
                                                                     (1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.
    substantial increase in the number of recipients of aid          (2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.
    under the Plan Renove Industrial.
Ð Absence of proportionality and absence of a statement
    of reasons:
    The fact that aid is declared to be prohibited by
    Article 92 is not enough to give rise simultaneously to          Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission
    an obligation to repay that aid. Upon weighing in the            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    balance, on the one hand, the restoration of free                                         (Case C-354/98)
    competition, which the Commission claims to have
    been under threat, and, on the other, the whole series                                     (98/C 340/25)
    of actual losses which the recipients of aid under the
    Plan would suffer if they were obliged to repay such
    aid, it is clearly impossible to achieve any equilibrium.        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                     Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission                Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                        (Case C-353/98)                              The Commission of the European Communities claims
                         (98/C 340/24)                               that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       and administrative measures necessary in order to