title: Case T-493/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2010 by Y against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08, Y v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/46

         Appeal brought on 21 May 2010 by Y against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08, Y v Commission
   (Case T-493/09 P)
   ()
   2010/C 221/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 October 2009 (Case F-29/08 Y v Commission) dismissing the applicant’s action;

               —

               annul the decision of 24 May 2007 to dismiss the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay him the remuneration which he would have continued to receive if his contract had not been prematurely terminated, together with all the allowances to which he is entitled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay him compensation of EUR 500 000 in respect of the non-material damage which he has suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08 Y v Commission, dismissing the action by which the applicant had sought, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant and, on the other, damages.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits that the CST erred in law:

               —

               by considering that the Commission did not have the obligation of consulting the Reports Committee when the decision of the Commission of 7 April 2004 laying down General Implementing Provisions on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of contract staff requires such consultation;

               —

               by considering that the applicant was validly dismissed when he had not been able to submit his observations on the opinion of the Reports Committee, which was not sent to him;

               —

               by ruling that the failure to send the opinion of the Reports Committee to the applicant did not infringe his rights of the defence;

               —

               by considering that the decision to dismiss was not based on the opinion of the Reports Committee, when that very report was expressly referred to in the grounds of the decision to dismiss;

               —

               by taking the view that the decision to dismiss was correctly founded when it was based on complaints and facts which preceded the applicant’s entry into service as a contractual agent; and

               —

               by considering that the decision to dismiss did not constitute disciplinary action when the alleged inadequate conduct of the applicant gave rise to a disciplinary procedure concerning the same facts and the same conduct as that on the basis of which the decision to dismiss was justified.


title: Case C-212/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland)) — Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach (Taxation — Capital duty — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Taxation of a loan taken up by a capital company from a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of the same company — Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax which was no longer in force at the date of its accession to the European Union)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland)) — Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach
   (Case C-212/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Capital duty - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Taxation of a loan taken up by a capital company from a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of the same company - Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax which was no longer in force at the date of its accession to the European Union)
   2011/C 232/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Right of a Member State to reintroduce a tax abolished on the date on which it acceded to the European Union — Capital duty — Charging of capital duty on a loan taken out by a capital company with a person entitled to a percentage of the profits of that company

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from reintroducing a capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of the company, where that Member State has previously waived the levying of that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-690/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Invivo v OLAF

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/20

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Invivo v OLAF
   (Case T-690/13)
   2014/C 151/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Invivo Ltd (Abinsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Huopalainen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Review the legality of a failure to act on the part of the defendant in case OF/2013/0902 after it has been called upon to act by the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to act.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging failure to act based on Article 265 TFEU, as the financial interests of the EU are involved within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) when the national agency that grants the aid receives most of its funds from the EU and where on the alleged abuser side legal entities from at least two member states are involved.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)


title: Case C-407/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(f) — Exemptions — Conditions — Services supplied by independent groups — Services supplied to one or several members of the group)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-407/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(f) - Exemptions - Conditions - Services supplied by independent groups - Services supplied to one or several members of the group)
   (2009/C 32/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13.A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Services supplied by independent associations for the purpose of providing their members with services which are directly necessary for the exercise of an exempted activity
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other conditions in that provision are met, services supplied to their members by independent groups are covered by the exemption contained in that provision, even if those services are supplied only to one or several of those members.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-193/06 P: Appeal brought on  24 April 2006  by Société des Produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on  22 February 2006  in Case T-74/04 Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), intervener: Quick restaurants SA

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/14

         Appeal brought on 24 April 2006 by Société des Produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 22 February 2006 in Case T-74/04 Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), intervener: Quick restaurants SA
   (Case C-193/06 P)
   (2006/C 165/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Quick restaurants SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the CFI judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2006; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs in their entirety

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the applicant the Court of First Instance made an error of law in that it failed to assess the trade mark in question in its entirety and in concreto, whereas the trade mark in question is composed of a particularly distinctive character and its name, the figurative and verbal elements of that complex trade mark cannot be separated in this instance.
   The Court of Instance also disregarded the provisions of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 10 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) by failing to take account, when assessing the likelihood of confusion, of all the relevant elements in question, as regards both the trade mark sought by the applicant and the word mark of the intervener.
   Finally, by examining only some of the rights invoked by the intervener in its opposition, the Court of First Instance disregarded the rules applicable to trade mark oppositions.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11 p. 1


title: Case T-491/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014  — Bodegas Muga v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Bodegas Muga v Commission
   (Case T-491/14)
   2014/C 282/67
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

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

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-409/13: Action brought on 18 July 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/15

         Action brought on 18 July 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-409/13)
   2013/C 274/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, A. de Gregorio Merino and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the Commission decision of 8 May 2013 by which the Commission decided to withdraw its proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions for macro-financial assistance to third countries;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council raises three pleas in law in support of its action for annulment of the Commission decision to withdraw a proposal for a regulation at a late stage of the first reading in the ordinary legislative procedure.
   First, the Council submits that the withdrawal of the proposal for a regulation constitutes a serious breach of the principle of the distribution of powers laid down in Article 13(2) TEU and the principle of institutional balance. According to the Council, there is no provision in the Treaties which expressly confers on the Commission a general prerogative right to withdraw a proposal which it has placed before the European Union legislature. However, while the Council does not dispute that a power of withdrawal exists on the basis of Article 293(2) TFEU, exercise of that power is not a matter for the Commission’s discretion; nor may that power be exercised in an abusive manner. The Council argues that, if the withdrawal of a proposal at such an advanced stage in the legislative process were to be recognised as legitimate, it would be tantamount to granting the Commission a form of right of veto vis-à-vis the co-legislators of the European Union. The Commission would thereby be placed on the same level as the co-legislators, which would constitute an abuse of the ordinary legislative procedure provided for under Article 294 TFEU, going above and beyond the Commission’s right under Article 293(2) TFEU to initiate legislation and depriving of practical effect the Council’s right of amendment under Article 293(1) TFEU. According to the Council, it would also be inconsistent with Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, because the Commission would no longer be an institution with an executive function but a participant in the legislative process at the same level as the institutions vested with democratic legitimacy.
   Secondly, the Council submits that the withdrawal of the proposal for a regulation also constitutes a breach of the principle of sincere and mutual cooperation under Article 13(2) TEU: (i) the proposal was withdrawn very belatedly; after a great number of tripartite meetings (‘trialogues’) had taken place during the first reading stage, the Commission had nevertheless withdrawn its proposal on the day on which the Parliament and the Council were to initial the agreement which they had reached; and (ii) the Commission had not, before proceeding with the withdrawal, exhausted all the procedural possibilities under the Council’s internal regulations.
   Lastly, the Council submits that the contested withdrawal was in breach of the duty under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU to state the reasons on which that act of withdrawal was based. According to the Council, the Commission did not provide any explanation for its decision to withdraw; nor did it publish that decision.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, of 21 February 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Italia Testa (Case C-101/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96            I hN     i               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 158/3
entitled to compete for the course-teaching appointments                  Commerce ( Commercial Court ) of 1 March 1996 , received
and temporary university teaching posts .                                 at the Court Registry on 18 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the case of URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1958 ( II ), p . 457                     Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui
                                                                          (C - 95/96 ) and in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                          du-Rhône against Clinique Florens SA, intervener : Jean
                                                                          Chouraqui (C- 96/96 ) on the following question :
                                                                          May the French State initiate proceedings against Mr Jean
Action brought on 25 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                          Chouraqui , in his capacity as an Agent ('), before having
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                          made good the damage suffered by him and for which the
                          ( Case C-94/96 )                                State was responsible , bearing in mind that the sums due are
                            ( 96/C 158 /04                                closely linked to the harm suffered by Mr Chouraqui as a
                                                                          result of his irregular imprisonment since he was acquitted
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                by the Cour d'assises by judgment of 16 December 1994 and
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the judicial receivership proceedings aggravate the harm
                                                                          suffered ?
25 March 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg              (') That is 'in his capacity as an agent for EURL Jean Chouraqui,
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                               proprietor of the legal person liable for sums payable to the
Commission's Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         French State'; ' since the plea in law based on the difference
                                                                               between the French State and the URSSAF must be rejected '.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that by failing to adopt in due time the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
      order to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 )
      of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive
      71 /118/EEC ( 2 ) on health problems affecting trade in
      fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has failed                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Pretura
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that                 Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, of 21 February
      Directive ;                                                         1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Italia Testa
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Case C-101 /96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       ( 96/C 158/06
Under Article 189 , third paragraph, of the Treaty
establishing the European Community directives are to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
binding upon each Member State to which they are                          European Communities by order of the Pretura
addressed . The Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the                 Circondariale di Roma ( District Magistrates ' Court, Rome ),
measures necessary to incorporate the relevant directive                  Tivoli Division, of 21 February 1996 , which was received at
fully into Greek law.                                                     the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          against Italia Testa on the following questions:
C ) OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 , p . 106 .
                                                                          A. May the national legislation conferring on the SIAE (')
                                                                                the exclusive right to manage copyright impede or
                                                                                prevent the import or export of sound recordings which
                                                                                have been lawfully marketed in another State ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    B. In the context of the single market, characterized by the
Commerce de Marseille by judgments of that court of                             free movement of goods and the freedom to provide
1 March 1996 in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                                services, may the SIAE require payments in all cases and
du-Rhône against Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA,                               circumstances on behalf of authors, relying on recourse
intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-95/96 ) and in the case of                       to criminal proceedings in order to give effect to that
URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against Clinique Florens                            power and enforce its claims ?
           SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-96/96 )
                  ( Cases C-95/96 and C-96/96 )
                                                                          C. Is the legislation and the national case-law referred to by
                            ( 96/C 158/05 )                                     the SIAE in its application to join the proceedings as a
                                                                                party claiming damages liable to give rise to arbitrary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          discrimination or a disguised restriction of trade, into
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            and out of Italy, in relation to the commercial
 ---pagebreak--- No C 158/4                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
      exploitation of copyright vis-à-vis the other Member                       criterion for ascertaining whether there is a pronounced
      States of the European Union ?                                             sexual odour; that leads to the systematic rejection of
                                                                                imports from Denmark, where testing is done by the
C ) Società Italiana Autori ed Editori — Italian Society of Authors              ' scatol ' method recognized by the competent authorities
     and Publishers .                                                            there . The German authorities wrongly invoke
                                                                                Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive, since the German
                                                                                practice is not directed to control by spot checks of
                                                                                compliance with the Community rules but to the
                                                                                systematic enforcement of a method which is recognized
                                                                                by Germany as the only reliable one .
                                                                            — Infringement of the conditions under Community law
Action brought on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                                for a declaration of unfitness for consumption under
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Article 5 of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by
                                  Germany
                                                                                Directive 91 /497/EEC : In the framework of control by
                             ( Case C- 1 02/96 )                                 spot checks, the country of destination may indeed apply
                               ( 96/C 158 /07 )                                  a suitable method of its own choice, but it is not entitled
                                                                                on that basis to deny the fitness for consumption of all
                                                                                consignments of meat which have been found to be fit
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            for consumption in the country of origin . That would
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              not be compatible with the principle of the internal
Communities on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of the                            market, nor with Article 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC,
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                                which provides for a sort of arbitration procedure in
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  which the Commission plays a decisive part.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        That procedure has already led, with respect to the
                                                                                ' scatol' method applied in Denmark , whose reliability
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                     was also doubted by France, to a confirmation of that
                                                                                method; unlike the French authorities, the German
 1 , declare that, by imposing the special obligation of                         authorities refuse to respect that result.
      marking and subjecting to heat treatment under
      Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 64/433/EEC ( ! ) the carcases      — Breach of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: The German
      of uncastrated male pigs if the meat, regardless of the                    Federal Government wrongly invokes compelling
      carcase weight, has an androstenone content of more                         reasons of consumer protection . The requirements with
      than 0,5 ^ig/g, applying Professor Claus's modified                        respect to the production and placing on the market of
      immunoenzyme test,                                                          fresh meat for human consumption have been fully
                                                                                harmonized by Directives 64/433/EEC ( as amended
                                                                                by Directive " 91 /497/EEC ) and 89/662/EEC . The
      and by regarding the meat as giving off a pronounced
      sexual odour and consequently unfit for human                               declaration on the problem of boar's meat made by the
                                                                                Council and Commission when Directive 91 /497/EEC
      consumption under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o ) of Directive
                                                                                was adopted has merely a clarifying function and cannot
      64/433/EEC if the threshold of 0,5 juig/g of androstenone
      is exceeded,
                                                                                be interpreted in a way which is incompatible with the
                                                                                wording of the Directive .
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) and Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o )     (') OJ , English Special Edition 1963-1964 , p . 185 .
                                                                            C-) OJ No L 268 , 1991 , p . 69 .
      of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by Directive                       (■') OJ No L 395 , 1989 , p . 13 .
      91 /497/EEC ( 2 ) in conjunction with Articles 5 ( 1 ), 7
      and 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and under Article 30
      of the EC Treaty;
 2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                            d'Instance, Lille, by judgment of that court of 19 March
                                                                            1996 in the case of Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
 — Infringement of the conditions under Community law                                       Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA
      for imposing a special obligation of marking and heat                                            ( Case C-103/96 )
      treatment under Article 6 of Directive 64/433/EEC as
      amended by Directive 91 /497/EEC : The German                                                      ( 96/C 158/08 )
      authorities' requirement of marking and subjecting to
      heat treatment if appropriate even carcases of less than              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      80 kilograms is clearly contrary to Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
      Directive . Also contrary to that provision is the                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Lille , of 19 March 1996 , which
      unilateral determination of a specified test as the                   was received at the Court Registry on 28 March 1996 , for a


title: Case T-459/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — EuroChem MCC v Council

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/37

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — EuroChem MCC v Council
   (Case T-459/08)
   (2008/C 327/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia), (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicants, its manufacturing subsidiaries and related companies, indicated in recital 23(a) and (c) and Articles 1.2(a) and 2.2(a) of the contested regulation;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their application the applicants put forward two grounds for annulment. The second ground is divided into three pleas.
   First, the applicants submit that the Council and the Commission breached Article 11(3) of the basic regulation (2) and/or made a breach of an essential procedural requirement by refusing to initiate upon their own initiative an interim review of injury and the injury margin findings in parallel with the expiry review, and consequently made a manifest error of assessment in the finding of a likelihood of recurrence of injury in the context of the expiry review.
   Secondly, the applicants claim that the Council and the Commission wrongly established the normal value for the applicants in the partial interim review, leading to its artificial increase, and made a wrong comparison with export price, and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping, thereby breaching Articles 1 and 2 of the basic regulation, committing series of manifest errors of assessment and violating fundamental principles of Community law.
   More particularly, the applicants argue that the Council and the Commission erred in law and violated Article 2(3) and (5) of the basic regulation as well as their legal context provided by Articles 1 ad 2 of the basic regulation, by disregarding a major part of the applicants' costs of production as being unreliable and/or de facto applying a non-market economy methodology for establishing the major part of the applicants' normal value.
   Once having decided to proceed with the gas adjustment, the Commission violated Article 2(5), second sentence, and/or made a manifest error of appreciation and showed a lack of reasoning by implementing the gas adjustment on the basis of the intra-Community price of gas at Waidhaus, Germany and failing to make further deductions.
   Finally, the applicants submit that the Council and the Commission violated Article 2(10) of the basic regulation and made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by deducting from the applicants' export price the first independent customer selling, general and administrative expenses and commissions in respect of related companies, which are integral parts of the applicants' single economic entity and integrated sales department.

      (1)  OJ L 185, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case T-359/04: Action brought on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggregates Association Limited, Healy Bros. Limited and DK Trotter & Sons Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/22

         Action brought on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggregates Association Limited, Healy Bros. Limited and DK Trotter & Sons Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-359/04)
   (2004/C 284/45)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggregates Association Limited, Lanark (United Kingdom) Healy Bros. Limited, Middleton, County Cork (Ireland) and DK Trotter & Sons, Manorhamilton, County Leitrim (Ireland) represented by C. Pouncey, Solicitor and L. Van Den Hende, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 fin of 7 May 2004‘State Aid N 2/2004 UK/ Aggregates Levy’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In 2002 the United Kingdom introduced the Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax on certain aggregates. By a decision of the same year the Commission concluded that the Aggregates Levy provisions did not constitute State Aid. Claiming that the competitive position of its members is affected by the Aggregates Levy, the applicant challenged that decision in the context of another case before the Court of First Instance (1).
   On 5 January 2004 the United Kingdom notified the Commission of a new Aggregates Levy relief scheme for Northern Ireland. By the contested decision the Commission declared the new scheme compatible with the common market, rejecting the applicant's complaint against it without opening the formal investigation procedure.
   In support of its application the applicant submits first of all that the scheme in question violates Articles 23 and 90 EC and could therefore not have been declared compatible with the common market. The applicant further claims that the Commission violated its own environmental guidelines (2), committing in this respect three manifest errors of assessment namely: Considering a 20 % proportion of the levy payable by firms eligible for the relief scheme as significant; mistakenly considering the new relief scheme had been decided when the Aggregate Levy was adopted and mistakenly finding that the levy has an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection.
   The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to state reasons in the contested decision, as required by Article 253 EC, violated its obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure, and violated its procedural obligations in the preliminary investigation.

      (1)  Case T-210/02, notified in OJ C 219, 14.9.2002, p. 23.

      (2)  Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection OJ C 37, 3.2.2001 p. 3-15.


title: Case C-29/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Global Trans Lodzhistik ООD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Global Trans Lodzhistik ООD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-29/13)
   2013/C 108/32
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Global Trans Lodzhistik ООD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 243(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, if it is interpreted in conjunction with Article 245 of that regulation and the principles of the right of defence and res judicata, permit a national provision like Article 220 and Article 211a of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on customs) under which more than one decision of a customs authority, which fixes an additional customs debt with a view to its subsequent recovery, may be challenged, even where, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, a final decision within the meaning of Article 181a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 could be adopted in order to fix that customs debt?

               2.

               Is Article 243(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 on the right of appeal to be interpreted to the effect that it does not provide that a final decision within the meaning of Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 must first be the subject of an administrative review in order for judicial proceedings to be permitted?

               3.

               Is Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, to the effect that, if the procedure laid down in that provision in relation to the right to be heard and the right to raise objections was not observed, the decision of the customs authority adopted in contravention of those rules does not constitute a final decision within the meaning of that provision, but is merely part of the procedure for the adoption of the final decision? Failing that, is that provision to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, to the effect that the decision adopted with the abovementioned procedural defects is directly subject to judicial review and the court must give final judgment on the action brought against it?

               4.

               Is Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings and having regard to the principle of legality, to the effect that, if the procedure laid down in that provision in relation to the right to be heard and the right to raise objections was not observed, the decision of the customs authority adopted in contravention of those rules is null and void on account of a material procedural defect which is comparable to an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, non-compliance with which results in the nullity of the act irrespective of the actual consequences of the infringement, with the result that the court is required to rule on an action brought against that act, without being able to consider referring the case back to the administrative authority for the proper termination of the procedure?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case C-336/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Sonthofen (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Sebat Ince

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Sonthofen (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Sebat Ince
   (Case C-336/14)
   2014/C 339/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Sonthofen

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Sebat Ince

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Kempten

      Questions referred

   I.   On the first charge (January 2012) and the second charge in so far as it relates to the period up to the end of June 2012:

               1(a)

               Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that criminal prosecution authorities are prohibited from penalising the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions carried on without German authorisation on behalf of betting organisers licensed in other Member States, where such intermediation is subject to the condition that the betting organiser too must hold a German authorisation, but the legal position under statute that is contrary to EU law (‘monopoly on sports betting’) prohibits the national authorities from issuing an authorisation to non-State-owned betting organisers?

               1(b)

               Is the answer to question 1(a) altered by the fact that, in one of the 15 German Länder which jointly established and jointly implement the State monopoly on sports betting, the State authorities maintain, in prohibition or criminal proceedings, that the statutory prohibition on the issue of an authorisation to private suppliers is not applied in the event of an application for an authorisation to operate as an organiser or intermediary in that federal Land?

               1(c)

               Must the principles of EU law, in particular the freedom to provide services, and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-186/11 be interpreted as precluding a permanent prohibition or an imposition of penalties (described as ‘precautionary’) on the cross-border intermediation of bets on sporting competitions, where this is justified on the ground that it ‘was not obvious, that is to say recognisable without further examination’ to the prohibiting authority at the time of its decision that the intermediation activity fulfils all the substantive conditions of authorisation (apart from the reservation of such activities to a State monopoly)?

               2

               Must Directive 98/34/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions via a gaming machine, without a German authorisation, on behalf of a betting organiser licensed in another EU Member State, where the interventions by the State are based on a law, not notified to the European Commission, which was adopted by an individual Land and has as its content the expired Staatsvertrag zum Glücksspielwesen (State Treaty on Gaming) (‘the GlüStV’)?

         II.   The second charge in so far as it relates to the period from July 2012

               3

               Must Article 56 TFEU, the requirement of transparency, the principle of equality and the EU-law prohibition of preferential treatment be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions, without a German authorisation, on behalf of a betting organiser licensed in another EU Member State in a situation characterised by the Glücksspieländerungsstaatsvertrag (State Treaty amending the provisions on games of chance) (‘the GlüÄndStV’), applicable for a period of nine years and containing an ‘experimental clause for bets on sporting competitions’, which, for a period of seven years, provides for the theoretical possibility of awarding also to non-State-owned betting organisers a maximum of 20 licences, legally effective in all German Länder, as a necessary condition of authorisation to operate as an intermediary, where:

                           (a)

                           the licensing procedure and disputes raised in that connection are managed by the licensing authority in conjunction with the law firm which has regularly advised most of the Länder and their lottery undertakings on matters relating to the monopoly on sports betting that is contrary to EU law and represented them before the national courts in proceedings against private betting suppliers, and was entrusted with the task of representing the State authorities in the preliminary ruling proceedings in Markus Stoß [and Others, C-316/07, C-358/07, C-359/07, C-360/07, C-409/07 and C-410/07, EU:C:2010:504], Carmen Media [Group, C-46/08, EU:C:2010:505] and Winner Wetten [C-409/06, EU:C:2010:503];

                           (b)

                           the call for tenders for licences published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 August 2012 gave no details of the minimum requirements applicable to the proposals to be submitted, the content of the other declarations and evidence required or the selection of the maximum of 20 licensees, such details not having been communicated until after the expiry of the deadline for submission of tenders, in a so-called ‘information memorandum’ and numerous other documents, and only to tenderers who had qualified for the ‘second stage’ of the licensing procedure;

                           (c)

                           eight months after the start of the procedure, the licensing authority, contrary to the call for tenders, invites only 14 tenderers to present their social responsibility and safety policies in person, because these have fulfilled all of the minimum conditions for a licence, but, 15 months after the start of the procedure, announces that not one of the tenderers has provided ‘verifiable’ evidence that it fulfilled the minimum conditions;

                           (d)

                           the State-controlled tenderer ‘Ods’ (Ods Deutschland Sportwetten GmbH), consisting of a consortium of State-owned lottery companies, is one of the 14 tenderers invited to present their proposals to the licensing authority but, because of its organisational links to organisers of sporting events, is probably not eligible for a licence because the law (Paragraph 21(3) of the GlüÄndStV) requires a strict separation of active sport and the bodies organising it from the organisation and intermediation of bets on sporting competitions;

                           (e)

                           one of the requirements for a licence is to demonstrate ‘the lawful origin of the resources necessary to organise the intended offer of sports betting facilities’;

                           (f)

                           the licensing authority and the gaming board that decides on the award of licences, consisting of representatives from the Länder, do not avail themselves of the possibility of awarding licences to private betting organisers, whereas State-owned lottery undertakings are permitted to organise bets on sporting competitions, lotteries and other games of chance without a licence, and to operate and advertise them via their nationwide network of commercial betting outlets, for up to a year after the award of any licences?

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).


title: Case C-163/01 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/7
      might be manifested. It is striking to note the importance        European Communities in Case T-73/94 between, on the one
      attached by the Court of Justice to the fact that in 1989,        hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of
      immediately after being granted a provisional reference           the European Union and the Commission of the European
      quantity, the four producers concerned resumed milk               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      production. That circumstance is totally disregarded in           the European Communities on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.M.
      the considerations of the Court of First Instance as              Beusmans, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat,
      contained in the contested judgment. For the rest, it             ther other parties to the proceedings being the Council of
      should be noted that, in its interim judgment in Mulder II,       the European Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the
      the Court of Justice did not deal at all with the specific        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      issues concerning the SLOM 83 producers.                          T. van Rijn.
—     The Court of First Instance incorrectly allocated the             The appellant claims that the Courts should:
      burden of proof, or at least imposed on Mr Bouma a
      burden of proof which is legally impermissible: prior to          —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
      the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84, a SLOM                    Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94 (1);
      producer in Mr Bouma’s situation could not assume that,           —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      if he did not resume production before 1 April 1984, he
      might forfeit, definitively and completely, his right to a        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
      reference quantity — or to alternative compensation. The                of the proceedings before both Courts.
      imposition of the burden of showing ‘that he had the
      intention of resuming milk production upon the expiry
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      of his non-marketing undertaking and that he found it
      impossible to do so owing to the entry into force of
      Regulation No 857/84’ necessarily means that Mr Bouma             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      is faced, retroactively, with the consequences of the entry       in Case C-162/01 P.
      into force of that regulation.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 C 90, p. 25.
      A Community citizen in the position of Mr Bouma
      cannot reasonably be expected, some 17 to 18 years after
      the material time, still to have at his disposal written
      evidence concerning the management of his holding                 Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg
      during a period in the distant past — a fortiori since in no      against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
      previous judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of         Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      First Instance was any relevance attached to evidence             European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the
      concerning the points which the Court of First Instance           one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council
      now regards as crucial.                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
—     The Court of First Instance set out and assessed the
      relevant facts in such an erroneous and biased manner                                    (Case C-164/01 P)
      that its judgment cannot be regarded as consistent with
      the obligation to provide reasons or the principle of
                                                                                (2001/C 227/11)
      objectivity.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
(1) OJ 1993 C 334, p. 17.                                               by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(2) Judgment of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89.                      European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one
(3) OJ 1984 L 148, p. 13.                                               hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of
                                                                        the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg,
Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans                    represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                parties to the proceedings being the Council of the European
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of
European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the                    the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.
one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the                      The appellant claims that the Court s hould:
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                             —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                              Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97 (1);
                        (Case C-163/01 P)                               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                              further determination of the action brought by the
                         (2001/C 227/10)                                      appellant before the Court of First Instance on 29 April
                                                                              1997;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001             —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   of the proceedings before both Courts.


title: Case T-22/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time — No individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

      Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-22/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time - No individual concern - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law)
      (2015/C 016/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Amal Bergallou (Lot, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, agents)

         Re:

      First, application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions link the entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time for that travel to receipt of the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance, and, second, application for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-88/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — State aid — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Information detrimental to a third-party company — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Obligation of professional secrecy — Non-material damage — Material damage — Causal link — Default and compensatory interest)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission
   (Case T-88/09) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - State aid - Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure - Information detrimental to a third-party company - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Obligation of professional secrecy - Non-material damage - Material damage - Causal link - Default and compensatory interest)
   2011/C 370/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Idromacchine Srl (Porto Marghera, Italy); Alessandro Capuzzo (Mirano, Italy); and Roberto Capuzzo (Mogliano Veneto, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and E. Righini, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered on account of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of false information adversely affecting inter alia the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004‘State aid — Italy — State aid N 586/2003, N 587/2003, N 589/2003 and C 48/2004 (ex N 595/2003) — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Idromacchine Srl damages of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material damage it has suffered;

               2.

               Orders that the damages to be paid to Idromacchine be paid with compensatory interest, as from 18 February 2005 to the delivery of the present judgment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               3.

               Orders that the damages to be paid to Idromacchine be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to complete payment of those damages, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by Idromacchine, Mr Alessandro Capuzzo and Mr Roberto Capuzzo, who are to bear a third of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-433/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/31

         Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council
   (Case T-433/13)
   2013/C 313/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Petropars Iran Co. (Kish Island, Iran); Petropars Oilfields Services Co. (Kish Island); Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. (Tehran, Iran); and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. (Tehran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, P. Reddy, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and Z. Burbeza, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul entries 1-4 of Annex II.I.B. to Decision 2013/270 (1) and entries 1-4 of Annex II.I.B. to Regulation 522/2013 (2); and/or

               —

               Declare Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (3) and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 (4) inapplicable to the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the applicants’ designation by way of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 as the reason given for the designation of each of the applicants (‘Subsidiary of [a] designated entity’) is not one of the criteria for listing in Council Regulation 267/2012 or Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that in so far as the Council purported to act under Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413, the designation of the applicants is unlawful: because (1) the substantive criteria for designation thereunder are not met in the case of any of the applicants and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met; and (2) the Council designated the applicants on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and thereby committed a (further) manifest error of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that In so far as Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 and/or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 permits the designation of the applicants solely on the basis that they are subsidiaries of designated entities (which entities are in turn subsidiaries of designated entities not accused of any wrongdoing), the same are unlawful as being contrary to the principle of proportionality and should be declared inapplicable to the applicants.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicants is in any event in violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter of Fundamental Rights or as otherwise part of Union law, including their right to trade and carry out their businesses and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. The designation further represents a breach of the precautionary principle and of the principles of environmental protection and the protection of human health and safety, as it is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety or ordinary Iranian workers and the environment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has, in passing Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 in so far as they apply to the applicants, breached the procedural requirements (i) to give the (Third and Fourth) applicants individual notification of their designation; (ii) to give (all the applicants) adequate and sufficient reasons; and (iii) to respect the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3)

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)


title: Case F-107/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/53

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-107/14)
   (2015/C 007/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               annul the decision of 16 February 2014 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to entering the service, as part of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 January 1997 in Case C-169/95: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Aid for the construction of a steel foundry in the Province of Teruel, Spain)

text:
No C 74/2            | EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
     insertion of the sponsor's name or logo at times other               national of Member State B from that latter State to
     than the beginning and/or the end of the programme.                  Serbia or Montenegro on the ground that Member
                                                                          State A allows payment for such exports to be made
                                                                          only if the exports take place from its own territory
(') OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, and                                      and they have been authorized by its own competent
    OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           authorities pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92,
                                                                          when the goods in question have been classified by the
                                                                          United Nations Sanctions Committee as products
                                                                          intended for strictly medical purposes and the
                                                                          competent authorities of Member State B have issued
                                                                          export authorizations for them in accordance with
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     2 . National measures which prove to be contrary to the
                                                                          common commercial policy provided for in Article 113
                       of 14 January 1997                                 of the Treaty and to the Community Regulations
                                                                          implementing that policy are justified under Article 234
in Case C-124/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 of the EEC Treaty only if they are necessary to ensure
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen, ex parte: Centro-Com                    that the Member State concerned performs its
         Sri v. HM Treasury and Bank of England (')                       obligations towards non-member countries under an
                                                                          agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the
(Foreign and security policy — Common commercial                          Treaty or prior to accession by that Member State.
policy — Blocking of funds — Sanctions against the
             Republics of Serbia and Montenegro)                     H OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
                           ( 97/C 74/02 )
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 January 1997
In Case C-124/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal ( England and                in Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
Wales ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                           the European Communities (')
before that court between the Queen, ex parte: Centro               (State aids — Aid for the construction of a steel foundry
Com Sri, and HM Treasury and Bank of England on the                                 in the Province of Teruel, Spain)
interpretation of Articles 113 and 234 of the EC Treaty
and Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1432/92 of 1 June                                             ( 97/C 74/03 )
1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic
Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992, p. 4 ), — the Court composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Advocate
General; F. G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Administrar, has given a judgment on 14 January 1997, in
which it rules :                                                     In Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents: Alberto
                                                                     Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) v.
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                     Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Paul Nemitz ) —
1 . The common commercial policy provided for in                     application for annulment of Commission Decision
     Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, as implemented by                95/438/EC of 14 March 1995 concerning investment aid
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June 1992              granted by Spain to the company Piezas y Rodajes SA, a
    prohibiting trade between the European Economic                  steel foundry located in Teruel province (Aragon ), Spain
     Community and the Republics of Serbia and                       ( OJ No L 257, 27. 10 . 1995 , p. 45 ), — the Court,
     Montenegro and by Council Regulation (EEC)                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. C.
     No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969 establishing                     Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon,
     common rules for exports, precludes Member State A              Presidents of Chambers, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
    from adopting, for the purpose of ensuring effective             D. A. O. Edward, J.-P- Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G.
     application of United Nations Security Council                  Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate
     Resolution 757 (1992) measures prohibiting Serbian              General : G. Tesauro; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     or Montenegran funds located in its territory from              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 January
     being released in order to pay for goods exported by a          1997, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/3
1 . dismisses the application;                                              where it is established that the charge has been
                                                                            borne in its entirety by another person and that
                                                                            reimbursement of the trader would constitute unjust
2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           enrichment. It is for the national courts to determine,
                                                                            in the light of the facts in each case, whether those
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                           conditions have been satisfied. If the burden of the
                                                                            charge has been passed on only in part, it is for
                                                                            the national authorities to reimburse the trader the
                                                                            amount not passed on.
                                                                       2 . The fact that there is a legal obligation to incorporate
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the charge in the cost price does not mean that there is
                        of 14 January 1997                                  a presumption that the entire charge has been passed
                                                                            on, even where failure to comply with that obligation
in Joined Cases C- 192/95 to C-2 18/95 (reference for a                     carries a penalty.
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Paris ):
Societe Comateb and Others v. Directeur General des
                 Douanes et Droits Indirects (')                       3 . Where, although the charge has been passed on to the
                                                                            purchaser, domestic law permits the trader to claim
(Dock dues — Recovery of sums not due — Obligation to                       that the illegal levying of the charge has caused him
          pass on the charge — Overseas departments)                        damage which excludes, in whole or in part, any
                            ( 97/C 74/04 )                                  unjust enrichment, it is for the national court to give
                                                                            such effect to the claim as may be appropriate.
                 (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 : reference to the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal
d'Instance de Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the                                             ( Sixth Chamber)
proceedings pending before that court between Société                                         of 16 January 1997
 Comateb ( C-192/95 ), Société Panigua ( C-193/95 ), Société
 Édouard et Fils ( C-194/95 ), Société de Distribution de              in Case C-134/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Vins et Liqueurs ( C- 1 95/95 ), Établissements André Haan             the Pretura Circondariale, Biella): Unità Socio-Sanitaria
 ( C-l 96/95 ), Société Diffusion Générale de Quincaillerie            Locale n. 47 di Biella (USSL) v. Istituto Nazionale per
 ( C-197/95 ), Société Diffusion Générale ( C-198/95 ), Société         l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL) (')
 Cama Renault ( C-199/95 ), SCP Ovide et Dorville ( C-200/              (Workers — Labour procurement service — Statutory
 95 ), Société Ducros Guadeloupe ( C-201 /95 ), Société                                              monopoly)
 Comptoir Commercial Caraïbes ( C-202/95 ), Société Giafa
 ( C-203/95 ), Société LVS ( C-204/95 ), Société Catherine et                                        97/C 74/05 )
Jean-Claude Tabar Nouval ( C-205/95 ), Société l'Heure et
 l'Or ( C-206/95 ), Société Général Bazar Bricolage ( C-207/                            (Language of the case: Italian)
 95 ), Société Grain d'Or ( C-208/95 ), Société Cash Service
 ( C-209/95 ), Établissements Efira ( C-210/95 ), Société Fa
 randole ( C-211/95 ), Société Carat ( C-212/95 ), Société Rio            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  ( C-213/95 ), Société Guadaloupéenne de Distribution Mod                       published in the European Court Reports)
 erne ( SGDM ) ( C-214/95 ), Martinique Automobiles SA
  (C-215/95 ), Socovi Sari ( C-216/95 ), Établissements Ga             In Case C- 134/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  briel Vangour et Cie Sari ( C-217/95 ), Simat Guadeloupe
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale (District
  Sari ( C-218/95 ) and Directeur Général des Douanes et
  Droits Indirects — on the interpretation of Community                 Magistrate's Court), Biella ( Italy ), for a preliminary ruling
  law concerning repayment of sums not due, the Court                   in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                        Unità Socio-Sanitaria Locale n. 47 di Biella ( USSL ) and
 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
  Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray,                  Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni
  Presidents of Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward              sul Lavoro ( INAIL ) — on the interpretation of Articles 48 ,
  ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,           49, 54 and 90 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
  Judges, Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: H. von              Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
  Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                   Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
   14 January 1997 in which it rules :                                  Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                        G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                                                                        Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
   1 . A Member State may resist repayment to the trader of             Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 1997, in
       a charge levied in breach of Community law only                  which it has ruled :


title: Case T-136/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — EARL Salvat père & fils and others v Commission (State aid — Wine-production conversion measures — Decision declaring aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Obligation to State reasons — Assessment in light of Article 87(1) EC)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — EARL Salvat père & fils and others v Commission
   (Case T-136/05) (1)

   (State aid - Wine-production conversion measures - Decision declaring aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Obligation to State reasons - Assessment in light of Article 87(1) EC)
   (2007/C 269/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: EARL Salvat père & fils (Saint-Paul-de-Fenouillet, France); Comité interprofessionnel des vins doux naturels and vins de liqueur à appellations contrôlées (CIVDN) (Perpignan, France); and Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d'origine (CNIV) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet and O.Billard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, agent)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Decision 2007/253/EC of the Commission of 19 January 2005 on the Rivesaltes plan and CIVDN parafiscal charges operated by France (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132 of 28.5.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one Member State to another — Tax levied before registration or bringing into use of a vehicle)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (1)

   (Directive 83/183/EEC - Transfer of residence from one Member State to another - Tax levied before registration or bringing into use of a vehicle)
   (2004/C 228/13)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-365/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought by Marie Lindfors — on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64), — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as not precluding, in connection with a transfer of residence of the owner of a vehicle from one Member State to another, a tax such as that laid down by the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on Car Tax) from being charged before the registration or bringing into use of the vehicle in the Member State to which residence is transferred. However, having regard to the requirements deriving from Article 18 EC, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the application of national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, that owner is not placed in a less favourable situation than that of citizens who have been permanently resident in the Member State in question and, if necessary, whether such a difference of treatment is justified by objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case T-115/06: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of salmon originating in Norway — Lesser duty rule — Calculation of minimum import prices and fixed duties)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council
   (Case T-115/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of salmon originating in Norway - Lesser duty rule - Calculation of minimum import prices and fixed duties)
   2012/C 133/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening (Oslo, Norway); Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening (Trondheim, Norway); Salmar Farming AS (Kverva, Norway); Hydroteck AS (Kristiansund, Norway); Hallvard Lerøy AS (Bergen, Norway); and Lerøy Midnor AS (Hestvika, Norway) (represented by: B. Servais and T. Paulsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Stancanelli and K. Talabér-Ritz, and subsequently by K. Talabér-Ritz, T. Scharf and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in so far as it concerns the Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening, the Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening, Salmar Farming AS, Hydroteck AS, Hallvard Lerøy AS and Lerøy Midnor AS;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening, the Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening, Salmar Farming, Hydroteck, Hallvard Lerøy and Lerøy Midnor;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case T-475/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)
   (Case T-475/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
   2014/C 52/68
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark WorkflowPilot as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LaserSoft Imaging AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/388/EEC — VAT — Article 11(A)(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to the price — Regulation (EC) No 603/95 — Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Article 11(A)(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to the price - Regulation (EC) No 603/95 - Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)
   (2004/C 228/19)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and K. Simonsson) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Falk) supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) — application for a declaration that, by failing to levy value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/1977) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.