title: Case C-413/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of 28 May 1999, in the case of Baumbast and "R" against Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
C 6/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                     The questions exclusive to the Baumbast
Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of                        case
28 May 1999, in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against
          Secretary of State for the Home Department
                                                                          Question 3
                          (Case C-413/99)                                 (a) On the facts of Mr. Baumbast’s case, does he, as an EU
                                                                               citizen, enjoy a directly effective right of residence in
                                                                               another EU Member State pursuant to article 18 (ex article
                           (2000/C 6/33)                                       8a) of the Treaty of Rome in circumstances where he no
                                                                               longer enjoys rights of residence as a worker under article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         39 (ex article 48) of the Treaty of Rome, and does not
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                     qualify for residence in the host state under any other
Tribunal, London, of 28 May 1999, which was received at the                    provision of EU law?
Court Registry on 28 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against Secretary of State for            (b) If so, are his wife and children consequently able to enjoy
the Home Department, on the following questions:                               derivative residence, employment and other rights?
                                                                          (c) If so, do they do so on the basis of articles 11 and 12 of
                                                                               Regulation 1612/68 or some other (and if so, which)
Question 1                                                                     provision of EU law?
(a) Are children of a citizen of the European Union who are               Question 4
     themselves such citizens and who have installed themselves
     in primary education during the exercise by their father (or         (a) Assuming that the preceding question is answered in the
     parent) of rights of residence as a worker in another                     EU citizen’s disfavour, do that person’s family members
     member state of which he is not a national (’the host state’)             retain the derivative rights that they, as such members,
     entitled to reside in the host state in order to undergo                  originally acquired upon being installed in the UK with a
     general educational courses there, pursuant to article 12 of              worker?
     Council Regulation 1612/68? (1)
                                                                          (b) If so, what are the conditions that apply?
(b) Insofar as the answer to the preceding question may vary
     in circumstances where:                                              (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                              on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     (i) their parents are divorced;                                          L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER1 68/II) p. 475).
     (ii) only one parent is a citizen of the European Union and
           that parent has ceased to be a worker within the host
           state;
     (iii) the children are not themselves citizens of the Euro-
           pean Union;                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent
                                                                          Court), by order of that court of 24 June 1999, in the case
     what criteria are to be applied by the national authorities?                of Zino Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-414/99)
Question 2
                                                                                (2000/C 6/34)
Where children have the right to reside in a host state in order
to undergo general education courses pursuant to article 12 of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council Regulation 1612/68, is the obligation of the host state           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
to ‘encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these         Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),
courses under the best possible conditions’ to be interpreted             of 24 June 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
as entitling their primary carer, whether or not a citizen of the         29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Zino
Union, to reside with them in order to facilitate such a right            Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd, on the following
notwithstanding:                                                          questions:
                                                                          (A) Insofar as the Directive (1) refers to goods being put on the
(i) their parents are divorced; or                                             market in the Community with the consent of the pro-
                                                                               prietor of a mark, is it to be interpreted as including
(ii) the father who is a citizen of the European Union ceases                  consent given expressly or implicitly and directly or
     to be a worker within the host state?                                     indirectly.


title: Case C-122/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 2 April 2009 — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries v Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias and Ipourgos Aigaiou

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 2 April 2009 — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries v Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias and Ipourgos Aigaiou
   (Case C-122/09)
   2009/C 141/52
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries

      Defendants: Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias and Ipourgos Aigaiou

      Questions referred

               (a)

               In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10 and the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community: (i) was the Greek legislature obliged, for the duration of the temporary exemption until 1 January 2004 from the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) which was introduced by Article 6(3) of that regulation and relates to Greece, to refrain from adopting provisions liable seriously to compromise the full and effective application of the regulation in Greece from 1 January 2004 onwards; (ii) are individuals entitled to rely on that regulation to contest the validity of provisions adopted by the Greek legislature before 1 January 2004 in the event that those national provisions seriously compromise the full and effective application of the regulation in Greece from 1 January 2004?

               (b)

               If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is answered in the affirmative, is the full application from 1 January 2004 of Regulation No 3577/92 in Greece seriously compromised by reason of the adoption by the Greek legislature, before 1 January 2004, of provisions which are exhaustive and permanent in nature, do not lay down that they cease to have force from 1 January 2004 and are contrary to provisions of that regulation?

               (c)

               If the answers to the first two questions referred for a preliminary ruling are in the affirmative, do Articles 1, 2, and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 permit the adoption of national rules under which shipowners may provide maritime cabotage services only on specific operational routes determined each year by a national authority competent for that purpose and after first obtaining an administrative licence granted under an authorisation scheme having the following characteristics: (i) it relates to all operational routes, without exception, which serve islands, and (ii) the competent national authorities may approve an application submitted for the grant of a licence to operate a service by unilaterally amending, in the exercise of their discretion and without prior definition by a rule of law of the criteria applied, the elements of the application which relate to the frequency and the period of interruption of the service and to the fare tariff?

               (d)

               If the answers to the first two questions referred for a preliminary ruling are in the affirmative, is a restriction on the freedom to provide services that is impermissible for the purposes of Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community introduced by national legislation which provides that a shipowner to whom the administration has granted a licence to operate a ship on a specified route (either after his application in that regard has been approved as it stands, or after it has been approved with amendments to certain of its elements, which he accepts) is in principle obliged to work the particular operational route continuously for the entire duration of the annual operational period, and that to secure compliance with this obligation imposed on him he must deposit, before the operational service commences, a letter of guarantee all or part of whose amount will be forfeited if the obligation in question is not complied with or not complied with precisely?


title: Case C-554/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2016 — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2016 — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-554/16)
   (2017/C 046/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: EP Agrarhandel GmbH

      Respondent authority: Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Questions referred

               1

               Does Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC (1) of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas (hereinafter: ‘the Commission decision’), as amended by Commission Decision 2010/300/EU (2) of 25 May 2010, preclude a provision of national law, such as Paragraph 6(6) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über die Kennzeichnung und Registrierung von Rindern (Order of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management on the identification and registration of bovine animals) (‘2008 Bovine Animal Identification Order’)), BGBl II No 201/2008, which, as regards compliance with all the time-limits covered by that provision — and thus also that relating to notification of movement to summer pasture — regards receipt of the relevant notification as the determining factor?

               2

               What effect does the second paragraph of Article 117 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3) of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have on the eligibility for a premium of bovine animals whose movement to summer pasture was notified late within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Commission decision?

               3.

               If the late notification of movement to summer pasture under the second paragraph of Article 117 of Regulation No 73/2009 does not result in the loss of eligibility for a premium, are penalties to be imposed for such late notification?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 235, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 127, p. 19.

      (3)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-519/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Framework agreement on parental leave — Substitution of maternity leave for parental leave — Date from which an individual right to parental leave is granted)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-519/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Framework agreement on parental leave - Substitution of maternity leave for parental leave - Date from which an individual right to parental leave is granted)
   (2005/C 143/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-519/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 December 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing that the right to maternity leave or adoption leave arising during parental leave replaces the latter which must then come to an end, without its being possible for the parent to defer the portion of the parental leave which he or she was unable to take and by limiting the grant of the right to parental leave to parents of children born after 31 December 1998, or in respect of whom adoption proceedings were initiated after that date, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 07.02.2004, p. 5.


title: Case T-110/12: Action brought on 27 February 2012 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/23

         Action brought on 27 February 2012 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
   (Case T-110/12)
   2012/C 126/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present proceedings have been brought against Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the applicant's name has been added to the list of addressees of the measures laid down therein.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to comply with the duty to state reasons, since the contested acts contain erroneous grounds which are unfounded in respect of the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the right to effective judicial protection in relation to the grounds on which the acts are based, since the duty to state reasons was not complied with.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the right to property, since that right was restricted without valid justification.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of equal treatment, as the applicant was treated in the same way as the undertakings which actually participated in Iran's nuclear proliferation, which unjustly relegates it to an inferior competitive position compared with the other national and foreign entities which compete with it on various markets.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: misuse of powers, since objective, precise and consistent evidence exists to show that, in adopting the fund-freezing measure, aims have been pursued which are different from those claimed by the Council.


title: Case T-284/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 2008 — OHIM v López Teruel (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Admissibility — Invalidity — Application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened — Circumscribed powers of the Appointing Authority)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 2008 — OHIM v López Teruel
   (Case T-284/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Admissibility - Invalidity - Application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened - Circumscribed powers of the Appointing Authority)
   (2009/C 19/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and E. Maurage, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: initially L. Levi and C. Ronzi, then L. Levi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 in Case F-97/06 López Teruel v OHIM, not yet published in the ECR, asking for that judgment to be set aside.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-695/15: Action brought on 24 November 2015 — BMB v OHIM — Ferrero (Sweet box, packet)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/70

         Action brought on 24 November 2015 — BMB v OHIM — Ferrero (Sweet box, packet)
   (Case T-695/15)
   (2016/C 038/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: BMB sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland) (represented by: K. Czubkowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero (Alba, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 826 680-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 1150/2012-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 61(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Breach of Articles 62 and 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Breach of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-81/10 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2010 by France Télécom SA against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 French Republic and France Télécom v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/12

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2010 by France Télécom SA against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 French Republic and France Télécom v Commission

   (Case C-81/10 P)
   2010/C 148/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, L. Olza Moreno, L. Godfroid and M. van der Woude, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment as to the substance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and grant the form of order sought by France Télécom at first instance;

               —

               alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, France Télécom invokes the misapplication by the Court of First Instance (now ‘the General Court’) of the concept of State aid when it accepts that categorisation in the present case while, on the other hand, admitting that the existence (or non-existence) of any advantage did not depend in the present case on the inherent characteristics of the regime at issue, but on factors extraneous to the regime itself, the effects of which could be determined only ex post. The General Court thus misconstrued the very nature of the system of prior scrutiny of State aid provided for by Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, an ex ante system based on an objective analysis of the inherent characteristics of regimes on the basis of prior notification of national authorities.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court misapplied the concept of advantage, in that it refused to carry out a comprehensive analysis of all the provisions laid down by the special tax regime. That regime, which was established by Law No 90-568, provided for two specific methods of taxation: (i) the ‘fixed levy’, during the period 1991 to 1993, which resulted in the overtaxation of the appellant as compared with the position under the general law, and (ii) the general law, during the period 1994 to 2002, which had a favourable fiscal effect as far as the appellant was concerned. By refusing to compare the effects of the special tax regime as a whole with the general law in respect of both of the periods at issue, the General Court made a number of errors of law.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the General Court refused to hold that the Commission’s silence, in its decision of 8 February 2005 concerning La Poste, as regards the established tax regime, could have given rise to an expectation on the appellant’s part as to the conformity of the measures concerned under the rules on State aid. Furthermore, the General Court had failed to take account of certain exceptional circumstances specific to the present case which justified the application of the principle of legitimate expectations.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, France Télécom invokes a failure to state reasons for the judgment, in that the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission in response to its arguments relating to breach of the limitation principle with regard to State aid. Thus, according to the appellant, the 10-year limitation period laid down under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) should have been calculated from 2 July 1990, the date on which Law No 90-568 established the tax regime at issue, and not from the date on which the aid was actually granted to the beneficiary.
   By its fifth and final ground of appeal, the appellant submits, lastly, that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission was entitled to quantify the aid on the basis of a ‘range’ and to order its recovery without committing a breach of the principle of legal certainty, whereas it was impossible to determine the real advantage which it could have enjoyed. Furthermore, the General Court had failed to respond to all of the appellant’s arguments alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-54/04: Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 71/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of this               Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      action.                                                              of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-55/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 71/32)
The Portuguese rule in Article 508 of the Civil Code, which
provides, essentially in so far as it deals with strict liability, for
maximum amounts of compensation which are lower than
the minimum guarantee amounts laid down in the Second                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Compulsory Motor Insurance Directive, is incompatible with                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
that Directive.                                                            2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Borde, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                             Council Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 on
of the European Communities against the Republic of                              the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation
                                Austria                                          of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC (1), and
                                                                                in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission,
                           (Case C-54/04)                                        the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                           (2004/C 71/31)
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Pleas in law and main arguments
10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Gregorio
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in           The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
Luxembourg.                                                                expired on 23 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) OJ 2002 L 53, p. 20.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants (1), or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           Action brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-59/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 71/33)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.                                                   2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-485/09: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — France v Commission

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/20

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — France v Commission
   (Case T-485/09) (1)

   2014/C 15/31
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preliminary rulings from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03) Novartis AG and Others v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom, and Ministre de l'Économie v Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Patent law — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 April 2005
   in Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preliminary rulings from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03) Novartis AG and Others v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom, and Ministre de l'Économie v Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)

   (Patent law - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)
   (2005/C 143/09)
   Languages of the case: English and French
   In Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03), made by decisions of 6 May and 3 June 2003, received at the Court on 14 May and 13 June 2003, in the proceedings between Novartis AG (C-207/03), University College London, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology and Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom and between Ministre de l'Économie (C-252/03) and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeutics Inc. — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   In so far as an authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market issued by the Swiss authorities and automatically recognised by the Principality of Liechtenstein under that State's legislation is the first authorisation to place that product on the market in one of the States of the European Economic Area, it constitutes the first authorisation to place the product on the market within the meaning of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as it is to be read for the purposes of the application of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003, OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-343/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 26 August 2009 — Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/44

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 26 August 2009 — Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport
   (Case C-343/09)
   2009/C 267/76
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Afton Chemical Limited

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport

      Questions referred

   In relation to the provisions relating to metallic additives in Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC (‘the Directive’) (1):

               1.

               With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8(a)(2) into Directive 98/70 (2) limiting the use of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl in fuel to 6 mg Mn per litre from 1 January 2011 and to 2 mg from 1 January 2014, is the imposition of such limits:

                           (1)

                           Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment?

                           (2)

                           Unlawful as being in violation of the requirements of the precautionary principle?

                           (3)

                           Unlawful as lacking in proportionality?

                           (4)

                           Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment?

                           (5)

                           Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty?

               2.

               With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8(a)(4), Article 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(6) into Directive 98/70 requiring the labelling of all fuels which contain metallic additives with the phrase ‘contains metallic additives’, is the imposition of such a labelling requirement:

                           (1)

                           Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment?

                           (2)

                           Unlawful as lacking in proportionality?

      (1)  OJ L 140, p. 88

      (2)  Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC, OJ L 350, p. 58


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-199/03: Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — European Social Fund — Reduction of Community financial assistance — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-199/03: Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - European Social Fund - Reduction of Community financial assistance - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)
   (2005/C 271/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-199/03: Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, P. Gallagher SC and P. McGarry BL) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 13 May 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-454/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/55/EC — Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-454/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/55/EC - Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 182/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-454/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 October 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18. 12. 2004.


title: Case C-579/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Popławski

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Popławski
   (Case C-579/15)
   (2016/C 027/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Daniel Adam Popławski

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a Member State transpose Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in its national law in such a way that:

                           —

                           its executing judicial authority is, without more, obliged to refuse surrender, for purposes of executing a sentence, of a national or resident of the executing Member State,

                           —

                           by operation of law, that refusal gives rise to the willingness to take over the execution of the custodial sentence imposed on the national or resident,

                           —

                           but the decision to take over execution of the sentence is taken only after refusal of surrender for purposes of executing the sentence, and a positive decision is dependent on (1) a basis for the decision in a treaty or convention which is in force between the issuing Member State and the executing Member State, (2) the conditions set by that treaty or convention, and (3) the cooperation of the issuing Member State by, for example, making a request to that effect,

                     with the result that there is a risk that, following refusal of surrender for purposes of executing the sentence, the executing Member State cannot take over execution of that sentence, while that risk does not affect the obligation to refuse surrender for purposes of executing the sentence?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Can the national courts apply the provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA directly even though, under Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, the legal effects of that Framework Decision are preserved after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon until that Framework Decision is repealed, annulled or amended?

                           (b)

                           If so, is Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA sufficiently precise and unconditional to be applied by the national courts?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2(b) are in the negative: may a Member State whose national law requires that the taking-over of the execution of the foreign custodial sentence must be based on an appropriate treaty or convention transpose Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA in its national law in such a way that Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA itself provides the required conventional basis, in order to avoid the risk of impunity associated with the national requirement of a conventional basis (see Question 1)?

               4.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2(b) are in the negative: may a Member State transpose Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA in its national law in such a way that:
               for refusal of surrender for purposes of executing a sentence in respect of a resident of the executing Member State who is a national of another Member State, it sets the condition that the executing Member State must have jurisdiction in respect of the offences cited in the EAW [European arrest warrant] and that there must be no actual obstacles in the way of a (possible) criminal prosecution in the executing Member State of that resident in respect of those offences (such as the refusal by the issuing Member State to hand over the case-file to the executing Member State),
               whereas it does not set such a condition for refusal of surrender for purposes of executing a sentence in respect of a national of the executing Member State?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case F-70/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Hidalgo v European Parliament

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/75

      Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Hidalgo v European Parliament
      (Case F-70/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/143)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: José Manuel Hidalgo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Application for the annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 and a claim for compensation.

         Forms of order sought

                  —

                  Declare that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 is not applicable;

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 4 June 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint regarding his salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009;

                  —

                  Annul, where necessary, the decisions of the European Parliament on the establishment of his salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009;

                  —

                  Order the Parliament to pay the applicant the arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled, plus default interest calculated, from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

                  —

                  Order the Parliament to pay the applicant a symbolic sum of EUR 1 to compensate for breaches of administrative duty and to pay the costs.


title: Case T-107/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — ETF v Schuerings (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Decision to terminate — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Articles 2 and 47 CEOS — Duty of care — Concept of interests of the service — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Rights of the defence)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — ETF v Schuerings
   (Case T-107/11) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Decision to terminate - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Articles 2 and 47 CEOS - Duty of care - Concept of interests of the service - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Rights of the defence)
   2014/C 24/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Gisela Schuerings (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents); European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented: initially by V. Salvatore, and subsequently by T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents); European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent); European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: P. Goudou, acting as Agent); European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by: E. Maurage, acting as Agent); Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents); European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, acting as Agent); and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 in Case F-87/08 Schuerings v ETF, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 in Case F-87/08 Schuerings v ETF, in so far as it set aside the decision of the European Training Foundation (ETF) of 23 October 2007 terminating the indefinite contract of Ms Gisela Schuerings and dismissing, as a result, her application for compensation for the material harm suffered as being premature;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-24/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — NCG Banco v Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/19

         Action brought on 7 January 2014 — NCG Banco v Commission
   (Case T-24/14)
   2014/C 61/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: NCG Banco, SA (Corunna, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-435/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Triarii v Commission

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/21

         Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Triarii v Commission
   (Case T-435/13)
   2013/C 304/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Triarii BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Verhellen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission (Re.: ENER B 1/IMMR(2013) ENER.B.1.2638778) dated 20 June 2013 in order to include the offer of the applicant in the tender;

               —

               In case the Court’s decision, as sought, is taken after the tender is awarded to a bidder:

                           —

                           Annul the current tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 in order to give the applicant a chance to bid again;

                           —

                           Annul the decision to be taken by the European Commission granting tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 to a bidder; and/or

                           —

                           Grant damages in compensation of a missed opportunity, due to the exclusion of the applicant from the tender No ENER/B1/2013-371.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the General Court is competent to try the present case, in conformity with Article 263 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, through its conduct, the Commission created legitimate expectation that the bid was served in due time on it.


title: Case C-446/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs — Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Service of general economic interest — Manifest error of assessment — Compensation for the public service obligation — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 February 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-446/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Services for the removal of animal carcasses and waste from abattoirs - Maintenance of reserve capacity in the event of an outbreak - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Service of general economic interest - Manifest error of assessment - Compensation for the public service obligation - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 145/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and C. Egerer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-257/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries — Reduced rate loans — Decision declaring aid incompatible in part with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — Force of res judicata — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-257/10) (1)

   (State aid - Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries - Reduced rate loans - Decision declaring aid incompatible in part with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Force of res judicata - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 355/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili and M. Fiorilli, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


26.4.2003              EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 101/31
        Removal from the register of Case C-331/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-339/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2003/C 101/53)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
By order of 31 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-331/02: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-344/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/55)
        Removal from the register of Case C-339/02 ( 1)             By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2003/C 101/54)                             from the register of Case C-344/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
By order of 13 February 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case T-831/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/57

         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)
   (Case T-831/16)
   (2017/C 022/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leedsworld, Inc. (New Kensington, Pennsylvania, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ZOOM’ — Application for registration No 11 766 111

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2016 in Case R 1235/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject entirely the EU trade mark No 11 766 111 ‘ZOOM’ for class 9;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-85/07: Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/21

         Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-85/07)
   (2007/C 95/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

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

               —

               declare that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Appennines, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1), in so far as it has failed:

                           —

                           to submit summary reports of the analyses required under Article 5, as provided for in Article 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC, and

                           —

                           to undertake the analyses and the review provided for in Article 5(1) of that Directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 2000/60/EC was received into Italian law by means of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006. Article 64 of that Decree identifies eight river basin districts, namely, the river basin district of the Eastern Alps, the river basin district of the Po Valley, the river basin district of the Northern Appennines, the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio, the river basin district of the Central Appennines, the river basin district of the Southern Appennines, the river basin district of Sardinia and the river basin district of Sicily.
   The Directive entered into force on 22 December 2000. In consequence, the analyses and the review provided for in Article 5(1) of the Directive should have been completed, in respect of all eight river basin districts, by 22 December 2004.
   In addition, the summary report of the analyses required under Article 5 for every river basin district, provided for in Article 15(2) of the Directive, should have been submitted to the Commission by 22 March 2005.
   However, it is clear from an analysis of the communications from the Italian authorities that, in the case of five out of the eight river basin districts, the required information is either incomplete or missing altogether.
   The Italian Republic has not submitted a summary report concerning the analyses and the review required under Article 5 for the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio or for the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps, the Northern Appennines, the Central Appennines and the Southern Appennines. Accordingly, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC.
   Lastly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission submits that the Italian Republic has also failed to fulfil its obligation to undertake, by the deadline fixed, the analyses and the review required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC, in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III to that Directive, in respect of the river basin districts referred to in the preceding paragraph.

      (1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-54/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 180/35
Article 5 (4 ) which is the only provision applicable in this            Pleas in law and main arguments:
case .
                                                                         The applicants complain that the Commission failed, in the
In the alternative, even assuming that Sogecable were                    context of its task of monitoring trade between Member
'jointly controlled' by Prisa and Canal Plus Francia, as the             States, public health and consumer protection, to introduce
Commission maintains, the applicant states, first, that Prisa            appropriate measures for the protection of public health on
and Canal Plus Francia would not jointly have any of the                 the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis ( BSE),
powers and rights set out in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ) and, secondly,        known as ' mad cow disease '. They state that the steps taken
that, even if they jointly had the powers and rights laid down           by the Commission since 1 988 to prevent the spread of BSE,
in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ), their turnover should not be added to          and possibly Creutzfeldt-Jacob's disease, must be regarded
Sogecable's turnover, pursuant to Article 5 ( 4 ) ( c ).                 as inadequate, having regard to the embargo measures
                                                                         precipitately decided on 26 March 1996 by that same
                                                                         Commission, which nevertheless has no more information
                                                                         than previously on any potential risk. The applicants
                                                                         maintain that the Commission is liable, inasmuch as it
                                                                         breached the principle of proportionality and made an
                                                                         incorrect assessment of the facts, giving rise to a risk to
                                                                         public health and consumers and having a manifest impact
                                                                         on trade in bovine livestock in the European Union .
Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Syndicat des
Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination Rurale,
Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la Coordination Rurale               Although the first recorded case of mad cow disease dates
and Philippe de Villiers against the Commission of the                   from 1986 , on a farm in Kent in the United Kingdom, and
                      European Communities                               despite numerous communications, scientific and
                                                                         journalistic, confidential and public, on the risks of the
                            ( Case T-53/96 )
                                                                         spread of BSE and the risks of human contamination, the
                              ( 96/C 180/86 )                            Commission, on the pretext of a lack of scientific certainty,
                                                                         failed to take the only measure to be taken in the face of a
                                                                         public health risk, namely the total prohibition of exports
                (Language of the case: French)                           and the possible slaughter of herds .
An action against the Commission of the European                         The applicants consider that the Commission failed to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        perform its obligation to supervise and monitor
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1996 by                 intra-Community trade . As a result of that failure, they, like
the Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      any other European citizen, have suffered non-material
Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs de                  damage for which they seek reparation; some of the
Lait de la Coordination Rurale, established at L'Isle                    applicants also claim to have suffered material damage, the
Jourdain ( France ), and Philippe de Villiers , residing at Les          extent of which is to be established in the course of the
Aubretières ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of              proceedings .
the Paris Bar .
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare the European Commission liable, on the basis of
     Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
     the Treaty on European Union, for failure to introduce              Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA
     measures for the protection of public health on the                  and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA against the
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis, known as                            Commission of the European Communities
     mad cow disease ;
                                                                                ( Case T-54/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/87
— order the European Union to pay the Syndicat des
     Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination
     Rurale, the Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
     Coordination Rurale and Philippe de Villiers the sum of
     FF 1 as token damages for the non-material damage
     suffered;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
— appoint such expert as the Court may think fit to                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 April 1 996 by
     determine the loss suffered by the members of the                    Oleifici Italiani SpA, whose registered office is at Ostuni
     Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      ( BR ) ( Italy ), and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA, whose
     Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs                 registered office is at Bari ( Italy ), represented by Antonio
     de Lait de la Coordination Rurale .                                  Tizzano and Gianmichele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 180/36            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
with an address for service at the Chambers of Tizzano, 36          of the applicants sent the Spanish laboratory three samples
Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels .                                   of olive oil from the impounded oil containers . The second
                                                                    analysis carried out by that laboratory acknowledges that,
                                                                    where the other values comply with the standard, a wax
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        content above the limit does not of itself indicate the
                                                                    presence of oil of olive residues ( and therefore irregular
                                                                    mixing), since it arises from an altogether natural chemical
— annul the Commission's decision, contained in the letter          process due to the ageing of the oil . The findings of the
    from Mr G. Legras, the Director-General of Directorate          Spanish laboratory were fully confirmed by the results of the
    General Agriculture ( DG VI ) — Directorate G,                  investigation ordered by the Italian judicial authorities .
    European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
     ( EAGGF ) — of 7 February 1996 ( Case No VI/000513 )
    which provided for the blocking of all payment owed for         Following the results of the latest analyses, the Commission
    the warehousing of olive oil in the 1991 /92 and 1992/93        acknowledged that the oil in question should be bought in
    marketing years,                                                 ( letter to AIMA from the Director of DG VI of 2 October
                                                                     1 995 , letter to AIMA from the Director-General of DG VI of
                                                                    23 November 1 995 and letter from the Director of DG VI of
— order the harm suffered by the applicant as a                     6 February 1996 ). Despite the unequivocal position adopted
    consequence of the alleged unlawful conduct to be made          by the Commission, the Director-General of DG VI, by
    good by the Commission,                                         letter of 7 February 1996 , asked the Member State to take
                                                                    steps to carry out further analysis on the samples in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           possession of the EAGGF at an independent laboratory , to
                                                                    inform the interested parties thereof and, in the meantime,
                                                                    to block any security and/or payment relating to the oil in
                                                                    question . In view of such conduct, the applicants brought
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                    the present action .
The applicants have for some years been registered in the           The applicants claim that the letter of 7 February 1 996 , in so
Albo degli Assuntori ( Register of Contractors ) of the             far as it imposes a block on payment as such and on the
Azienda per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricola ( State Board       security in respect of the abovementioned oil , is a retroactive
for Intervention in the Agricultural Market, 'AIMA'). In            revocation of a lawful act which confers rights or
that capacity, they are responsible for intervention                advantages to individuals . Such a revocation, according to
operations in the olive oil market in accordance with               consistent case-law, is to be considered contrary to the
Community law. For the marketing years 1991 /92 and                 general principles of law recognized by the Community legal
1992/93 , the applicants bought in 16 653 566 tonnes of             system and in particular to the fundamental principle of
virgin olive oil . Upon the oil entering into store, AIMA           protection of acquired rights . The applicants point out,
carried out the control and analysis prescribed by                  however, that, irrespective of such a breach, the
Community law. Since it found the stored oil to be in full          abovementioned letters of the Commission of 2 October
compliance , AIMA itself duly paid the corresponding                and 23 November 1995 were such as to give rise to at least a
proprietors of that oil .                                           legitimate expectation in respect of the applicants as regards
                                                                    the conformity of the oil held by them and that the relevant
In November 1 993 , the EAGGF department of DG VI at the            payments would be made . The subsequent unforeseen and
Commission decided to carry out a general inquiry into the          unjustified u-turn by the Commission is in sharp contrast
bought-in oil in Italy .                                            with the principle of respect for legitimate expectations laid
                                                                    down throughout the Community's case-law. Furthermore ,
                                                                    the applicants consider that the Commission, in deciding to
In the context of that check samples were taken of the oil          block payments, misused its powers and committed a
and were sent to a Spanish laboratory for analysis. The             manifest error of assessment of material facts . Finally, the
analysis showed that, with the exception of the wax levels,         applicants point out that the Commission has not complied
the oil tested showed values fully in compliance with the           with the requirements of proportionality inasmuch as it
criteria laid down by the Community system . However, in            requested by letter of 7 February 1996 the blocking of
view of the discrepancy with regard to waxes, the laboratory        payment not only for the consignments of the ' disputed' oil
concluded that there was some olive-residue oil in the             — that is consignments in which a high level of wax had
sample tested. The Commission, taking into account the              been found — but also for the consignments of oil inwhich
objections and the requests submitted by the Italian                no abnormality had been found in the wax levels .
authorities, upheld the request to proceed to a second check
at an Italian laboratory. The findings of the Commission
concerning the alleged anomalies of the oil in question            The applicants further seek compensation for damage
however prevented payment to the contractors of the                 ( actual losses and lost profits ) caused by the alleged conduct
amounts due to them .                                               of the Commission , within the meaning of Articles 178 and
                                                                    215 of the Treaty .
At the end of March 1995 , the Italian judicial authorities
also undertook an investigation into the oil in question,
ordering, inter alia, that it be impounded . In June 1995 , one


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002 in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 274/11
Community law precludes the retroactive application of a time-limit           A situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the
that is shorter and, as the case may be, more restrictive for the             differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex
claimant than the period for initiating proceedings that was previously       performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to
applicable to claims for the recovery of national taxes contrary to           a single source, does not come within the scope of Article 141(1) EC.
Community law where no adequate transitional period is provided
during which claims relating to sums paid before the entry into force
of the legislation introducing the new time-limit may still be brought        (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
within the old period. Where a limitation period of five years is
replaced with a time-limit of three years, a transitional period of 90
days must be regarded as insufficient and six months must be
regarded as the minimum period required to ensure that the exercise
of rights of recovery is not rendered excessively difficult.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
                                                                              in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine
                                                                              Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto
                                                                                Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special
                                                                                jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)
                       of 17 September 2002                                                               (2002/C 274/18)
in Case C-320/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
A.G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd,
Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd (1)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct
effect — Comparison of the work performed for different
                               employers)                                     In Case C-334/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                              of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
                                                                              the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                              Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
                           (2002/C 274/17)
                                                                              by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich
                     (Language of the case: English)                          Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), on the interpret-
                                                                              ation of Article 5(1) and (3) of the abovementioned Convention
                                                                              of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
                                                                              the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                              Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
In Case C-320/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                         — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 Octo-
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
before that court between A. G. Lawrence and Others and                       L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie                      Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Secure Services Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 141(1) EC,              Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court, composed of:
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr                  (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                     Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, J. N. Cunha
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,                   Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal               L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
17 September 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, characterised         and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
by the absence of obligations freely assumed by one party towards             Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
another on the occasion of negotiations with a view to the formation          C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
of a contract and by a possible breach of rules of law, in particular         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
the rule which requires the parties to act in good faith in such              D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
negotiations, an action founded on the pre-contractual liability of the       C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
defendant is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the     M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968                judgment on 19 September 2002, in which it has ruled:
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the                  1.    Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic                      of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession                      (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.                                production methods compatible with the requirements of the
                                                                                protection of the environment and the maintenance of the
                                                                                countryside, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                                and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
                                                                                on which the European Union is founded.
                                                                              2.    Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by
                                                                                the abovementioned Act of Accession, must be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that a Commission decision approving a national aid
                                                                                programme also encompasses its content, without, however,
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              conferring on that programme the nature of an act of
                                                                                Community law.
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              3.    A Commission decision approving a national aid programme
                                                                                as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92,
                      of 19 September 2002                                          as amended by the Act of Accession, is addressed only to the
                                                                                Member State concerned. It is for the national courts to decide,
                                                                                in the light of national law, whether the publicity given to that
in Case C-336/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           programme enabled it to become binding on agricultural and
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Republik Österreich v Martin                             rural operators, in particular by ensuring compliance with
                              Huber ( 1)                                            the requirement of appropriate information laid down in
                                                                                Article 3(3)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.
(Agriculture — Part-financed aid — Repayment — Legal
basis — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal
     certainty — Procedural autonomy of Member States)                        4.    Community law does not preclude the application of the
                                                                                principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
                                                                                certainty in order to prevent the recovery of aid part-financed by
                          (2002/C 274/19)                                           the Community which has been wrongly paid, provided that the
                                                                                interest of the Community is also taken into consideration. The
                                                                                application of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                   (Language of the case: German)                                   expectations assumes that the good faith of the beneficiary of
                                                                                the aid in question is established.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                             5.    It is open to Member States to implement national aid
                                                                                programmes within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by the Act of Accession, by
                                                                                private-sector measures or by forms of State action, in so far as
In Case C-336/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                          the national measures in question do not affect the scope and
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                          effectiveness of Community law.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Republik Österreich and Martin Huber, on the validity and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible                    (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
with the requirements of the protection of the environment
and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215,
p. 85), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland