title: Case C-76/09 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2009 by Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) against the judgment delivered on 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani and Others v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/22

         Appeal brought on 19 February 2009 by Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) against the judgment delivered on 28 November 2008 in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani and Others v Commission
   (Case C-76/09 P)
   2009/C 113/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hotel Cipriani SpA, Italian Republic, Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul Articles 1 and 2 of the decision, (1) in so far as they declare that the tax relief granted by Italy is incompatible with the common market, and Article 5 thereof or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first plea in law, Italgas alleges an error of law in the application of Article 87(1) EC and faulty reasoning in the grounds stated for the judgment under appeal in relation to the compensatory nature of the relief at issue and in relation to the evidence of distortion of competition and the affecting of trade. Although the Court of First Instance acknowledged that a measure does not constitute State aid if it merely offsets objective financial disadvantages, it erred in holding that that principle did not apply to the case before it because: (i) there must be a direct connection between the amount of the compensation and the amount of the additional costs borne by the undertakings on account of their location in the lagoon areas of Venice and Chioggia; (ii) the additional costs borne by the beneficiary undertakings must be assessed in relation to the average costs borne by undertakings in the Community, not in relation to the average costs borne by undertakings located on the Italian mainland. Moreover, the Court of First Instance failed to note the contradiction in the contested decision where the Commission, appraising the position of the undertaking responsible for operating water services, found that it is possible to categorise a measure as compensatory even where the public service does not precisely account for the additional costs borne by the undertakings, and that these need not necessarily be calculated by reference to the average costs borne by undertakings in the Community.
   By the second plea in law, Italgas alleges an error in law in the application of Article 87(1) EC and the Community case-law concerning the burden of proof, in relation to the Commission’s categorisation of the measure at issue as State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1), and faulty reasoning in the grounds stated for the judgment under appeal. In particular, the Court of First Instance erred in holding that it was for the Italian Republic and the interested third parties, not for the Commission, to show that the pre-conditions for the application of Article 87(1) EC were not satisfied in the case of certain categories of undertaking or sectors of activity concerned by the social security relief, concluding that the contested decision did not infringe Article 87(1) EC or the principle of equal treatment and was not weakened by the contradictory or faulty nature of the reasons stated. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance failed to address the plea raised by Italgas in its own application, alleging infringement of Article 87(1) in relation to the principle of non-discrimination and the manifestly contradictory nature of the reasons stated in the context of the examination of the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) EC.
   By the third plea in law, Italgas alleges distortion of the facts and evidence, and an error of law relating to the observance of procedural obligations and the principle that the Commission is under a duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination. It is clear from the documents produced in the course of the proceedings at first instance that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts and the evidence before it and committed a serious error in law in failing to point out that the Commission had not fulfilled its procedural obligations or the obligation, incumbent upon it in the exercise of its powers under Articles 87 and 88 EC, to carry out a diligent, accurate and non-discriminatory examination.
   By the fourth plea in law, Italgas alleges an error of law, together with insufficient and contradictory grounds stated for the judgment under appeal, in the assessment of the failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision, as regards the legal implications of the Commission’s letters of 29 August 2001 and 29 October 2001 in relation to the examination of the conditions concerning the effects of the relief at issue on competition and trade. In the light of the rules and principles underpinning the system established by the Treaty for the control of State aid, the position of the Court of First Instance is erroneous and unsupported by adequate grounds in so far as: (i) the Court concluded that the reasons stated for the contested decision were sufficient to enable the Italian authorities to identify the undertakings under an obligation to return the aid received, for the implementation of the contested decision; (ii) the Court minimised the legal implications of the details and additional information which the Commission communicated to the Italian authorities by the letters of 29 August 2001 and 29 October 2001, categorising those letters as acts which fell within the scope of the duty of cooperation in good faith between the Commission and the national authorities.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).


title: Case T-405/15: Action brought on 25 July 2015 — Fulmen v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/25

         Action brought on 25 July 2015 — Fulmen v Council
   (Case T-405/15)
   (2015/C 337/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fulmen (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 1 0 09  560 in respect of material damage and the sum of EUR 1 00  000 in respect of non-material damage; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging serious misconduct on the part of the Council, including misuse of its powers.
   The applicant claims that the Council did not have the slightest evidence against it to support the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures against Iran and that the Council used the contested measures in order to harm Iran’s industrial capacity and economic development.


title: Case T-36/09: Action brought on 23 January 2009 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Distribuciones Mylar (dm)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/30

         Action brought on 23 January 2009 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Distribuciones Mylar (dm)
   (Case T-36/09)
   (2009/C 82/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH + Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Distribuciones Mylar, SA (Gelves, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in case R 228/2008-1 and, by way of correction, reject the opposition entirely;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in case R 228/2008-1 and remit the case to OHIM;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2008 in case R 228/2008-1; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘dm’, for goods in classes 1, 3-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-32, 34 and for services in class 40

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 561 742 of the figurative mark ‘DM’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 39

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 57 and 59 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the letter of the defendant of 8 June 2007 did not suspend the appeal period; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned due to the similarity of the goods covered; Infringement of Rules 17(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as the Board of Appeal failed to find that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal failed to state the essential details of the opposition.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-576/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. against the order of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2014 in Case T-430/14 Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. v European Commission and European Ombudsman

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/14

      Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. against the order of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2014 in Case T-430/14 Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. v European Commission and European Ombudsman
      (Case C-576/14 P)
      (2015/C 073/20)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Appellant: Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító Kft. (represented by: K.D. Pap, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, European Ombudsman

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court

         Pleas in law and main arguments

            Principal ground of appeal:

      According to the appellant, the General Court misinterpreted and incorrectly reformulated the claims in its application and also misinterpreted the pleas relied on in support in holding that it had brought an action against the Commission on the ground of ‘the Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings’.
      The appellant states that its application asked the General Court to ‘
            oblige the European Commission to conduct a procedure which was in accordance with EU law and guaranteed the effectiveness of EU law
         ’.
      On that basis the appellant brought an action against the Commission arguing that the manifest breach of its right to fair administration entailed a breach of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It argues that the Commission thereby not only deprived it of its right to fair administration but also of its right to an effective judicial procedure, in that it conducted an unfair procedure, did not carry out an analysis which was in accordance with EU law and did not guarantee the effectiveness of that law (inter alia the Charter on Fundamental Rights).
      The appellant considers that the interpretation of its application by the General Court implies that it follows directly from the Commission’s procedure in accordance with EU law that, in the case of an objective review under EU law, the Commission was obliged to open infringement proceedings, and the appellant could not demand that it do so.
      By contrast, the appellant takes the view that it is clear from the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which have the same binding force as the Treaties, that it is only after making a fair assessment that the Commission may decide, on the basis of the case-law, whether it should open infringement proceedings. Consequently, fair administration is a fundamental requirement and the Commission may only exercise its power to assess — which, in the opinion of the appellant, may not lead to failure to observe fundamental rights — following fair administration, given that, otherwise (as in the present case) it may not even be in a situation where there is anything to assess.

            Ground of appeal in the alternative: EU law does not, even indirectly, provide for any discretion for the Commission to grant an exemption from the obligation of the Member States to apply secondary legislation and the Regulation.

      The view of the General Court on the Commission’s discretion, set out in the grounds of the judgment — paragraph 6 — breaches, from various points of view, binding and unequivocal provisions of the Treaties, which are not, therefore, subject to assessment by the Commission. In the view of the appellant, the Commission is not, moreover able to assess the obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      In its application, the appellant did not at any point contest the Commission’s discretion, but, rather, in the actual substance of the application, complained that it was not possible for the Commission to exercise its discretion within the meaning of the settled case-law relied on by the General Court, given that it is only appropriate to speak of the exercise of discretion if the assessment itself is fair and if there is something which can reasonably be assessed.
      The Treaty, which is a higher-ranking norm than the case-law, provides that the Commission is to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law.

         In the present case, the agent of the European Union (European Union body) which made the assessment has deprived the appellant of its fundamental right to assess and itself to decide on questions which cannot in themselves be the subject of assessment, instead of the Commission’s doing so, in advance and in an unfair manner; that is to say, rather than exercising its discretion, the agent itself decided on the appellant’s case on the basis of false findings of fact.
      The appellant considers that neither the national court nor the European Commission can assess whether or not, where Article 101 TFEU is applicable, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the application of that article must be applied, and nor can the Commission decide that the refusal to apply a regulation of the European Union (unequivocal case of failure to apply) is equivalent to the concept of ‘application in another way’. In itself, that finding alone demonstrates the breach of the right of the appellant to fair administration and, consequently, the failure to provide an effective judicial procedure and a lawful judge.


title: Case T-28/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/37

         Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT)
   (Case T-28/10)
   2010/C 80/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 November 2009 in Case R 635/2009-2 inasmuch as it dismissed the trade mark application No 7 077 654 for the goods and services which are the subject of this action;

               —

               grant Community trade mark application ‘EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT’ No 7 077 654 for all goods and services refused in Classes 9 and 36;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 and 45 (Application for registration No 7 077 654).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because, for all the goods and services refused for registration, the mark applied for is not descriptive but distinctive.


20.11.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Decision adopted by the Court at its general meeting on                Assignment of Judge F. Macken
                      14 September 1999
                                                                       Judge F. Macken is assigned to the Third and Sixth Chambers
                        (1999/C 333/01)
In accordance with Article 10(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the        Appointment of the Presidents of the Cham-
Court of Justice of the European Communities at its general            bers
meeting on 14 September 1999, appointed Mr Nial Fennelly
as First Advocate General for the period from 7 October 1999
to 6 October 2000.                                                     In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                       Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
                                                                       7 October 1999:
                                                                       — Judge L. Sevón as President of the First Chamber,
                                                                       — Judge R. Schintgen as President of the Second Chamber,
Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of                     — Judge J.C. Moitinho de Almeida as President of the Third
                             Justice                                        and Sixth Chambers,
                                                                       — Judge D.A.O. Edward as President of the Fourth and Fifth
                        (1999/C 333/02)                                     Chambers.
Following her appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by Decision of the Representatives
of the Governments of the Member States of 15 September
1999 (1), with effect from the taking of the until 6 October
2003, Mrs Fidelma Macken took the oath before the Court on             Composition of the Chambers
5 October 1999.
                                                                       1.     The composition of the Chambers for the same period
(1) OJ 1999 L 248, p. 32.                                              has been determined as follows:
                                                                       First Chamber
                                                                       Mr Sevón, President of the Chamber,
                                                                       Messrs Jann and Wathelet, Judges.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on
                        6 October 1999
                                                                       Second Chamber
                        (1999/C 333/03)
                                                                       Mr Schintgen, President of the Chamber,
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting of 6 October 1999:              Messrs Hirsch and Skouris, Judges.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/2                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
Third Chamber                                                            — the Judge-Rapporteur,
Mr Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                        — three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant
                                                                              list; the starting point on that list shall be moved down
                                                                              one name at each general meeting.
Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet and Mrs Macken, Judges.
Fourth Chamber                                                           Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending
                                                                         shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the
                                                                         President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he
Mr Edward, President of the Chamber,                                     shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
                                                                         Chamber.
Messrs Kapteyn and Ragnemalm, Judges.
                                                                         If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases
Fifth Chamber                                                            should be heard and determined together (whether or not they
                                                                         are formally joined) the composition of the bench shall be that
Mr Edward, President of the Chamber,                                     determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
                                                                         meeting.
Messrs Sevón, Kapteyn, Jann, Ragnemalm and Wathelet,
Judges.                                                                  4.      For the period ending on 6 October 2000 the lists
                                                                         referred to above are as follows:
Sixth Chamber
                                                                         Third Chamber
Mr Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
                                                                         (President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida)
Messrs Schintgen, Gulmann, Puissochet, Hirsch and Skouris
and Mrs Macken, Judges.
                                                                         Messrs Gulmann, Puissochet and Mrs Macken, Judges.
2.     For each case assigned to it, the Third Chamber (to which
four Judges are attached) shall be composed of the President             Fifth Chamber
of the Chamber, the Judge-Rapporteur, and a third Judge
designated in the order set out in a list which corresponds to
the order of seniority. At each general meeting the starting             (President: Mr Edward)
point on that list shall be moved down one name.
                                                                         Messrs Kapteyn, Ragnemalm, Jann, Sevón and Wathelet,
3.     For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are           Judges.
to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the
Fifth Chamber and the Sixth Chamber, lists shall be drawn up             Sixth Chamber
for the judicial year.
                                                                         (President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida)
The list for the Fifth Chamber (to which at present six Judges
are attached) shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber,
except the President, in the following order:                            Messrs C. Gulmann, Puissochet, Mrs Macken, Messrs G. Hirsch,
                                                                         Schintgen and Skouris, Judges.
(a) first, the Judges of the Fourth Chamber, in order of
     seniority;
                                                                         5.      Cases already examined in a general meeting before
(b) secondly, the Judges of the First Chamber, in the same               6 October 1999:
     order.
                                                                         — where the Judge-Rapporteur is no longer a member of the
The list for the Sixth Chamber (to which seven Judges are                     bench of Judges to which the case was assigned and the
attached) shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, except                hearing has not yet taken place or, where there is to be no
the President, in the following order:                                        hearing, the Advocate General’s Opinion has not yet been
                                                                              delivered, the case shall be reassigned to the equivalent
(a) first, the Judges of the Third Chamber, in order of seniority;            bench of which the Judge-Rapporteur is now a member;
(b) secondly, the Judges of the Second Chamber, in the same              — where the Judge-Rapporteur continues to be a member of
     order.                                                                   the bench of Judges concerned, the case shall remain
                                                                              assigned to that bench in its new composition.
For each case the large Chamber shall be composed of:
— the President,


title: Case T-507/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission (State aid — Manufacture of leisure equipment — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Whether imputable to the State — Private investor test)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-507/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Manufacture of leisure equipment - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Whether imputable to the State - Private investor test))
   (2016/C 098/35)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and A. Grum, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Kocjan and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents, assisted initially by M. Ulčar and M. Ménard, and subsequently by M. Ménard, P. Božičko and A. Krošel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/273/EU of 19 September 2012 on the measures SA.26379 (C 13/10) (ex NN 17/10) implemented by Slovenia in favour of Elan d.o.o. (OJ 2014 L 144, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-89/06: Order of the President of the Court of 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-89/06) (1)

   (2006/C 224/72)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


C 118/28              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-506/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/98 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/70)                                                   (2001/C 118/73)
By order of 22 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 4 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-506/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-479/98: Kingdom of Spain v
European Communities v Portugal.                                    Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-189/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-209/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/71)                                                   (2001/C 118/74)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-189/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-209/99: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Spain.                                       ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn): Birgit Frings v Blenderm-
                                                                    ann GmbH.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-468/99 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-312/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/72)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/75)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-468/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain              from the register of Case C-312/99: Commission of the
and Northern Ireland.                                               European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.


title: Case F-138/07: Action brought on 6 December 2007 — Van Arum v Parliament

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/48

         Action brought on 6 December 2007 — Van Arum v Parliament
   (Case F-138/07)
   (2008/C 92/98)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   (i) The applicant seeks an alteration of the decision of the appointing authority to award him one merit point to a decision to award him two merit points, and alternatively, annulment of that decision and an order that the appointing authority send to the Tribunal all of the papers and documents on the basis of which the contested decision was taken. (ii) The applicant seeks an order that the defendant pay to him the token sum of one euro in compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               alter the decision to award him one merit point to a decision to award him two merit points;

               —

               alternatively, order the appointing authority to send to the Tribunal all of the papers and documents on the basis of which the Director General made his decisions of 7 September and 23 November 2006 and annul those decisions together with the decision of the joint committee;

               —

               order the appointing authority to pay to the applicant in compensation a token sum of one euro;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-172/09: Action brought on 24 Avril 2009 — Gem-Year et Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/46

         Action brought on 24 Avril 2009 — Gem-Year et Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council
   (Case T-172/09)
   2009/C 153/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gem-Year Industry Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron and steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as

                           —

                           it made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in order to conclude that the complaining community producers had standing, in breach of Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation;

                           —

                           it breached Article 1(1), (2) and (4), Article 2(8) and Article 5(2) and (10) of the Basic Regulation by imposing anti-dumping duties against several different products;

                           —

                           it breached Article 3(3) and (4) of the basic Regulation in that it finds that the Community industry suffered material injury on the basis of a manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case;

                           —

                           it unjustifiably rejects the market economy treatment claims of Chinese exporting producers in breach of Article 2(7)(c), second part of the first indent, of the basic Regulation;

                           —

                           it is in breach of Article 2(7)(c), as interpreted in line with the WTO Agreement and paragraph 15 of China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO, in that it rejected the claim for market economy treatment of producers in the fastener industry based on a situation prevailing in another industry;

                           —

                           its findings are based on insufficient information in breach of the duty of examining carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case as guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures;

                           —

                           it is in breach of Articles 1(1) and 1(2), Article 2, Article 3(1), Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 10(1), Article 11 and Article 15 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation as it uses the rejection of market economy treatment in order to countervail subsidies;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron and steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), on the basis of the following grounds:
   The applicants submit that the Council made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts applied in the case in order to conclude that the complainants had standing under Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the basic regulation (2), as it should allegedly have taken into account the margin of error in the statistics it used for calculating the total community production and should have corrected this figure accordingly. Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is in breach of Articles 1(1), (2) and (4), 2(8), 5(2) and (10) of the basic regulation by imposing anti-dumping duties against several different products, where an anti-dumping investigation can cover no more than one single product. Further, the applicants put forward that the Council made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case and breached Article 3(3) and (4) of the basic regulation when it concluded in recital 161 of the contested regulation that the Community industry suffered material injury, whereas this finding rests solely on one negative injury indicator, on one contradictory finding, and on several speculative assessments.
   The applicants also argue that the contested regulation is in breach of the second part of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c), as it rejected the claim for market economy treatment of Chinese exporting producers on the ground that their cost of major inputs did not reflect international, non-distorted market price, whereas this provision simply requires companies claiming market economy treatment to demonstrate that they purchase their main input at market value.
   Furthermore, it is submitted that the contested regulation is in breach of Article 2(7)(c), as interpreted in line with the WTO Agreement and paragraph 15 of China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO, in that it rejected the claim for market economy treatment of producers in the fastener industry based on a situation prevailing in another industry. In addition, the applicants contend that the findings of the contested regulation are based on insufficient information in breach of the duty of examining carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case as guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is in breach of Articles 1(1) and 1(2), Article 2, Article 3(1) of the anti-subsidy basic regulation (3) as it did not determine whether subsidies found to exist during the anti-dumping investigation were subsidies as defined in those articles; in other words, that a financial contribution took place, was specific, conferred a benefit and that the EU industry was injured as a consequence of it. Similarly, according to the applicants, the Commission never analysed the injury, in accordance with Article 8 of the anti-subsidy basic regulation, or calculated the benefit conferred upon the recipient as mandated by Articles 5 and 6 of the said regulation. In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission did not follow the procedures set out in Articles 10(1) and 11, nor did it establish, on the basis of facts, the existence of countervailable subsidies and injury caused thereof as required by Article 15 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation as it uses the rejection of market economy treatment in order to countervail subsidies.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1997 L 288, p. 1)


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2002 in Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — No need to adjudicate)

text:
13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/31
      (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 April 2002
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments
                                                                               N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/55)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 9 April 2002
                                                                           In Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments N.V.
in Case T-210/93: H. Hepp v Council of the European                        (formerly Jubertrade N.V.), established in Antwerp (Belgium),
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      represented by Y. van Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk                     the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck)
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion                    — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
            undertakings — No need to adjudicate)                          C(1999)4419 final (REC 4/99) of 14 December 1999 finding
                                                                           that it was appropriate, first, to make post clearance recovery
                                                                           and, secondly, to refuse to refund duties in respect of the
                          (2002/C 169/54)                                  importation of television sets from Turkey — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
                                                                           President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          made an order on 16 April 2002, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
In Case T-210/93: H. Hepp, residing in Villmar-Weyer (Germ-
any), represented by H. Heep, lawyer, against Council of the               2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for               (1) OJ 149 C 27.5.00.
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regu-                                             of 16 April 2002
lation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                      in Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum
Extended Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos,                           B.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
President V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.                                           (2002/C 169/56)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ 270 C 19.10.92.                                                     In Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum B.V.,
                                                                           represented by R.G. Baron Snouckaert van Schauburg, lawyer,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — application


title: Case C-24/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi Soini v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi Soini v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   (Case C-24/07)
   (2007/C 82/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Per Il Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cantina Produttori Cormòns, Luigi Soini

      Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (OJEC L 236 of 23 September 2003) to be interpreted as meaning, with regard to the names of wines produced in Hungary and in the European Community, that, with effect from 1 May 2004, only the provisions of Community legislation referred to in Regulation No 1493/99 (1) and Regulation No 753/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004 (3), are applicable?

               2.

               Does Article 52 of Regulation No 1493/99 constitute an adequate legal basis on which the European Commission may abolish the use of the name of a wine (in the present case, ‘Tocai friulano’) which derives from a vine variety that is lawfully entered in the appropriate registers of the Italian State and is referred to in relevant Community regulations?

               3.

               Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the wine ‘Tocai friulano’, among the 122 names listed in Annex I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued use of that name after 31 March 2007?

               4.

               Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which provides authority for the use of the names of the vine varieties listed in Annex I to that regulation (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties and geographical indications which refer to wines produced within the European Community?

               5.

               If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homonymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety (‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries in the European market?

               6.

               Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provision in Article 24(6) thereof, concerning homonymous names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Ministers or the Member States (still less the European Commission) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homonymous names, afford different treatment to wine names having the same characteristics from the point of view of homonymity?

               7.

               Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that are parties to that agreement to protect homonymous names, directly applicable within the Community legal order, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case T-262/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Kiselev v Council

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/70

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Kiselev v Council
   (Case T-262/15)
   (2015/C 294/85)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselev (Korolev, Russia) (represented by: T. Otty and B. Kennelly, Barristers, and J. Linneker, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant satisfied the criterion for listing in Article 1(1) of the Decision (as amended) and Article 2(1) of the Regulation (as amended).

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that in order to ensure compliance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the criteria for listing in the Decision and Regulation must be interpreted consistently with the right to freedom of expression. According to the applicant, the criterion that a person ‘actively supports’ Russian government policies in relation to Ukraine must require the person to have a greater degree of influence over the relevant policies than merely expressing a view in a journalistic context. The applicant, so he claims, is a journalist and the director of a media company only and thus does not have the requisite influence or concrete impact on, and responsibility, for the situation in Ukraine. In fact, the applicant has never expressed support for ‘the deployment of Russian forces in Ukraine’ as the Council claims.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the freedom of expression.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the restrictive measures punish the applicant for the political views that he has expressed as a journalist and a commentator. They also restrict his ability to exercise his right to freedom of expression as well as the operation of the news agency, Rossiya Segodnya, which he manages. According to the applicant, the mere fact that the Council objects to the content of some of the applicant’s reportage cannot justify restrictions. In addition, there is no evidence that he has incited violence or done anything to justify a restriction on his free speech rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that he was never given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against him. The applicant, so he claims, was provided with the Council’s ‘evidence’ (and then in part) only after he had been relisted.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the reason provide is excessively vague and fails to identify the actual and specific reason form imposing restrictive measures on the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, alternatively, that the Council relied on an illegal measure (to the extent that the criterion for listing permits a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression).

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that if, contrary to the first plea, the criterion is to be interpreted so as to permit the listing of natural persons engaged in media activities simply by reason of their expression of political views which the Council regards as objectionable, the designation criterion would lack a proper legal base and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of the Decision and the Regulation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the EU/Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that no attempt has been made to justify the breaches of Article 52 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement involved in restricting the free movement of the funds of the applicant (among others) and no attempt has been made to engage with the Cooperation Council under Article 90.


title: Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/51

         Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission
   (Case T-137/17)
   (2017/C 144/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled;

               —

               Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought in essence against the decisions of 25 November 2016 and [2] May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature for the EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5 competition, was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for admissions as regards the education requirements.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that a number of indications show that it is not possible that the decision of 2 May 2016 was taken by the selection board.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel.

                           —

                           The applicant asserts that the administration gave precise assurances as regards the competition for which she had previously applied, namely competition EPSO/AD/172/09, that competition having the same admission criteria as competition EPSO? AD/177/10. In competition EPSO/AD/172/09 the selection board concluded that the applicant meets the conditions required as regards experience/professional training.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case.

                           —

                           The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear from the diplomas produced that she has a level of university education equal to a full cycle of at least three years, attested by a diploma relevant to the nature of the competition duties.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and lack of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear that the applicant’s candidature was not rejected on the basis of considerations connected with her qualification and diplomas, but on a question of general foreign policy for the purposes covered by the recruitment.


title: Case C-430/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Decision 2000/764/EC — Testing and epidemio-surveillance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 — Market support measures — Veterinary measures — Community contribution to the financing of part of the costs of the tests — Directive 85/73/EEC — Whether possible for the Member States to finance the part of the costs not covered by the Community by charging national fees for the inspection of meat and fees for combating epizootic diseases)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-430/07) (1)

   (Decision 2000/764/EC - Testing and epidemio-surveillance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 - Market support measures - Veterinary measures - Community contribution to the financing of part of the costs of the tests - Directive 85/73/EEC - Whether possible for the Member States to finance the part of the costs not covered by the Community by charging national fees for the inspection of meat and fees for combating epizootic diseases)
   2009/C 205/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon BV

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Netherlands Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 1(3) of Commission Decision 2000/764/EC of 29 November 2000 on the testing of bovine animals for the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and amending Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2000 L 305, p. 35), of Article 2(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (OJ 2000 L 321, p. 47), of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103), of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/99 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21) and of Article 5(4), last sentence, of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1) — BSE testing — Approved rapid tests — Exclusive financing by the Community or compulsory co-financing by the Member States with costs passed on to traders by way of fees — Judgment in Case C-239/01 Germany v Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market, as amended by Commission Regulation No 111/2001 of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as covering the obligatory tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy carried out in the Netherlands in May and June 2001 on all meat from bovine animals aged more than 30 months slaughtered for human consumption;

               2.

               Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2777/2000, as amended by Regulation No 111/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on marketing meat from bovine animals aged more than 30 months which did not produce a negative result in the bovine spongiform encephalopathy test which it imposed with effect from 1 January 2001, constitutes a veterinary measure, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Council Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, which forms part of the programmes of eradication and monitoring of bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

               3.

               Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2777/2000, as amended by Regulation No 111/2001, and Article 4 and Article 5(4), second subparagraph, of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from charging national fees intended to finance the cost of testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The total amount of the fees concerning the slaughter procedures for bovine animals intended for human consumption must be set in accordance with the principles adopted for Community fees, according to which that amount may not exceed the costs incurred, which cover salary and social-security costs and the administrative costs of carrying out those tests and any direct or indirect refund of such fees is prohibited.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-313/06: Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/25

         Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-313/06)
   (2006/C 212/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery or, in any case, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/26/EC into national law expired on 20 May 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 146, p. 1.


title: Case T-461/14: Action brought on 20 June 2014  — Arocasa v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/63

         Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission
   (Case T-461/14)
   2014/C 253/85
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Arocasa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.


title: Case T-531/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/43

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)
   (Case T-531/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2010 in Case R 570/2010-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Vorfront’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 19 and 20.

      Decision of the Examiner: refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character and is not purely descriptive

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 16 July 1997 by E-Quattro, società in nome collettivo, having its seat in Laveno-Mombello, Varese, Italy, against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-257/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 271 /9
2 . If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is                 In view of the failure to fulfil obligations, give an
      Article 92 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning                  official explanation or any reply, the company must
      that such aid is compatible with the common market ?                   take legal action before the Court in order to obtain
                                                                             compensation in damages consisting in the amount set
                                                                             out in the invoice and interest thereon as from two
                                                                             months after the date of the invoice, subject to further
                                                                             interest accruing in the meantime .
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by E-Quattro, società in                ( b ) Failure       to    continue         the  contractual
nome collettivo, having its seat in Laveno-Mombello,                         relationship
Varese, Italy, against Commission of the European
                             Communities                                     The contract concluded between the parties provides
                          ( Case C-257/97)                                   for, at most, a duration of two years, although
                                                                             performance is divided into two stages .
                            ( 97/C 271/13 )
                                                                             Although the Commission reserved the right not to
An action against the Commission of the European                             proceed to the second stage, it is nevertheless true that
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       such a right may not be indiscriminate or arbitrary
the European Communities on 16 July 1997 by E-                               and in any event, account must be taken of the
Quattro, società in nome collettivo, having its seat in                      circumstances in which it is exercised .
Laveno-Mombello, Varese, Italy, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the                   Finally, the applicant is of the view that the
Corte di Cassazione ( Court of Cassation ) of the Italian                    termination in question must be justified, notified to
Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       the parties in good time and in circumstances such as
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias                              not to prejudice the legitimate expectations that the
Hardt .
                                                                             contract would proceed as normal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 . order the Commission to make good the damage
      suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
      services set out in the unpaid invoice;                          Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten by order of that tribunal of
                                                                       8 July 1997 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
                                                                       Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
2 . order, further, the Commission to make good the
                                                                                Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft
      damage caused to the company by the unjustified
      termination of the contract and by its notification on                                    Case C-258/97 )
      the last possible date;                                                                    ( 97/C 271 /14 )
3.    the whole of the above to be in the amount set out in
      the application or together with interest accruing from          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the due date to the date of actual payment;                      European Communities by an order of the Unabhängiger
                                                                       Verwaltungssenat fur Kärnten ( Independent Administrative
                                                                       Senate for Carinthia ) of 8 July 1997, which was received
4. order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings .               at the Court Registry on 17 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH v.
                                                                       Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft         on      the
                                                                       following questions :
( a ) Payment for the services provided
                                                                        1 . Is Article 2 ( 8 ) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
      Article 7 ( 2 ) of the contract stipulates that the                    21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
      Commission is to effect payment upon presentation of                   regulations and administrative provisions relating to
      the invoice or within two months from the date of
                                                                             the application of review procedures to the award of
      receipt thereof.                                                       public supply and public works contracts ( ! ) to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the Unabhängiger
      The services in respect of the first stage were                        Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten fulfils the conditions for
      completed in March 1997 and the invoice for the                        a body responsible for review procedures with respect
      balance was sent on 6 March 1997 .                                     to services ?
      Already four months have elapsed without the amount              2 . Are these or other provisions of Council Directive 89/
      set out in the invoice having been paid and without                    665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations
      the slightest official explanation or reply.                           and administrative provisions relating to the


title: Case C-322/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2012 — État belge — SPF Finances v GIMLE SA

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2012 — État belge — SPF Finances v GIMLE SA
   (Case C-322/12)
   2012/C 287/40
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Defendant: GIMLE SA

      Question referred

   Must Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (1) be interpreted as not only providing that additional information must be provided in the notes on the annual accounts but also requiring that — where the acquisition cost clearly does not reflect the real value of the assets concerned, thus giving a distorted view of the undertaking’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss — the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost must be departed from and such assets immediately recognised as having their resale value, if that appears to be the real value?

      (1)  OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-193/01 P: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (Appeal — Decision 93/731/EC — Access to Council documents — Decision 1999/284/EC — Access to documentation and archives of the European Central Bank — "Basle/Nyborg" Agreement on the reinforcement of the European Monetary System — Refusal of access — Application out of time against that decision — Excusable error)

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 158/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 15 May 2003
                                                                                of 15 May 2003
in Case C-160/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sozialgericht Leipzig): Karin Mau v Bundesanstalt für
                               Arbeit (1)                                             in Case C-193/01 P: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (1)
(Council Directive 80/987/EEC — National legislation fix-
                                                                             (Appeal — Decision 93/731/EC — Access to Council
ing the final date for the guarantee period as that of the
                                                                             documents — Decision 1999/284/EC — Access to docu-
decision to open the procedure for the collective settlement of
                                                                             mentation and archives of the European Central Bank —
claims where the employment relationship still exists at that
                                                                             ‘Basle/Nyborg’ Agreement on the reinforcement of the
date — Article 141 EC — Indirect discrimination against
                                                                             European Monetary System — Refusal of access — Appli-
female employees on child raising leave — Liability of a
                                                                              cation out of time against that decision — Excusable error)
Member State in the event of infringement of Community
                                  law)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/07)
                           (2003/C 158/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-160/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-193/01 P, Athanasios Pitsiorlas, residing at Thessa-
Karin Mau and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the interpretation                loniki (Greece), represented by D. Papafilippou, lawyer: Appeal
of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                       against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                      European Communities (First Chamber) of 14 February 2001
Member States relating to the protection of employees in the                 in Case T-3/00 Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB [2001] ECR II-
event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283,                    717, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
p. 23) and of Article 141 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                          (Agents: M. Bauer and D. Zachariou) and European Central
C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                   Bank, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                       Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, Regis-
                                                                             trar, has given a judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
1.    Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
      20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
      Member States relating to the protection of employees in the                 European Communities of 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00
      event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as             Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB;
      precluding a provision of national law, such as Para-
      graph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III (German Social Code,
      Part III), which defines the date of the onset of the employer’s       2.    Rejects the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council of the
      insolvency as the date of the decision ruling on the request for             European Union before the Court of First Instance;
      opening of the insolvency procedure and not the date on which
      that request was lodged.                                               3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
                                                                                on Mr Pitsiorlas’ application for annulment of the decision of
2.    The expression ‘employment relationship’ within the meaning                  the Council of 30 July 1999 and the decision of the European
      of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987, must be interpreted                 Central Bank of 8 November 1999 refusing him access to a
      as excluding periods which, by their very nature, cannot give                document;
      rise to outstanding salary claims. A period during which the
      employment relationship is suspended on account of child               4.    Reserves the costs.
      raising leave and, for that reason, confers no right to remuner-
      ation, is therefore excluded.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 6 April 1996 in Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P: Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Copyright)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/3
Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in Algiers on                    1 . dismisses the appeals;
26 April 1976 and approved on behalfofthe Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September
1978, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State                  2 . orders Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent
from refusing to grant a benefit such as the supplementary                  Television Publications Ltd (ITP) to pay the costs of the
allowance from the FNS, which is provided for under its                     appeals lodged by them;
legislation for its own nationals who are resident in that
State, to the widow ofan Algerian worker, who is resident in
that Member State and is the recipient of a survivor 's                 3 . orders Intellectual Property Owners Inc. (IPO) to bear
pension there, on the ground that she is of Algerian                        its own costs and to pay those incurred by the
                                                                            Commission due to its intervention.
nationality.
                                                                        (M OJ No C 307, 27. 11 . 1991 .
(M OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 263 , 27 . 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
                                                                        in Case C-299/93 : Ernst Bauer v. Commission of the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                European Communities (*)
                          of 6 April 1996
                                                                        (Arbitration clause — Residential tenancy agreement —
in Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P: Radio Telefis                Determination of the rent — Termination — Restitution of
Eireann ( RTE ) and Independent Television Publications Ltd                                         damage)
    ( ITP) v. Commission of the European Communities C )
                                                                                95/C 137/06
 (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —
                                Copyright)
                             ( 95/C 137/05 )                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: English)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C 241/91 P and C 242/91 P : Radio Telefis               In Case C-299/93 : Ernst Bauer ( Agent: Giorgio Gozzi )
Eireann ( RTE ), a public authority having its office in Dublin         v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents :
 ( Agents : W. Alexander and G. van der Wal ) and                       Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for
Independent Television Publications Ltd ( ITP ), a company              a declaration that the request for surrender of tenanted
incorporated under English law and having its registered                residential premises and the increase in the rent payable for
office in London (Agents : M. J. Reynolds and R. Strivens ),            those premises were unlawful, and for compensation for the
supported by Intellectual Property Owners Inc . ( IPO ),                additional rent paid on the basis of that increase and for
having its registered office in Washington DC, United States            material and non-material damage incurred as a result of the
of America ( Agents : D. R. Barrett and G. I. F. Leigh ) —              early surrender of the premises — the Court ( Second
appeals against two judgments of the Court of First Instance            Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
of the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 10 July               Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch,
 1991 in Case T-69/89 RTE v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR                    Judges ; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
11-485 and in Case T-76/89 ITP v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR               gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative part of
                                                                        which is as follows :
11-575 , seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ), supported by Magill              1 . the application is dismissed;
TV Guide Ltd , having its registered office in Dublin ( Agent:
Gore & Grimes , Solicitors ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias ( Rapporteur ), President, F. A.                     2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida and J. L. Murray, Judges ; C. Gulmann,                       (M OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which
it :