title: Case C-439/02: Action brought on 4 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 19/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         during the years 1999 and 2000, Ireland has failed to
the Court should:                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1) of Directive 95/
                                                                               21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of
—     Declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on the                  shipping (1);
      public lending right set out in Directive 92/100/EEC of
      19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and            2)     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
      intellectual property, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of
      that Directive;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                        Article 5(1) of Directive 95/21/EC, in its wording at the
                                                                        material time, imposes an obligation on each Member State to
                                                                        inspect at least 25 % of the number of individual foreign ships
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         which enter its ports in a given year. It is clear from the facts
                                                                        that Ireland failed to fulfil this obligation for the years
                                                                        1999 and 2000 because in those years it inspected 7,5 % and
Although Belgium has provided for a right to remuneration
                                                                        14,6 % respectively of the number of ships that entered its
for authors in those cases in which the latter cannot prohibit
                                                                        ports.
lending, none of the implementing measures provided for by
Article 63 of the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright
and related rights has been adopted and the amount of
remuneration has therefore never been fixed.                            (1 ) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
                                                                             enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
                                                                             sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
The Belgian authorities err in invoking difficulties in dis-                 of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
                                                                             and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
tinguishing the categories of establishments which may be                    (OJ L 157, 07.07.1995, p. 1).
exempted under Article 5(3) of the Directive. If the circum-
stances prevailing in the Member State in question do not
make it possible to draw a valid distinction between categories
of establishments, the solution must lie in imposing the
obligation to pay the remuneration in question on all of the
establishments concerned.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
                                                                        Action brought on 4 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-439/02)
Action brought on 2 December 2002 by the Commission                                                 (2003/C 19/42)
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                          (Case C-436/02)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                           (2003/C 19/41)                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 December 2002 by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Knut Simonsson, acting as agent, with an address for service
                                                                        1.     Declare that, by failing to carry out a number of annual
in Luxembourg.                                                                 inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number
                                                                               of individual vessels entering its ports in 1999 and 2000,
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
1)    declare that, by failing to carry out an annual total                    concerning port State control (1);
      number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of
      the number of individual ships which entered its ports            2.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
By inspecting 14,1 % (in 1999) and 12,2 % (in 2000) of vessels               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
which entered its ports, France has inspected an insufficient                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
number of vessels entering its ports. Lack of staff cannot justify           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
failure to fulfil obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 95/            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
21/EC.                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 July 2001
                                                                             without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                             necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
                                                                             referred to in the Commission’s application.
( 1) OJ Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
     enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
     sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
     of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention        (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
     and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
     (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1).
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                             by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of
                                                                             Caixa Bank France against Ministère de l’économie, des
Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission                                               finances et de l’industrie
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-442/02)
                           (Case C-440/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/44)
                            (2003/C 19/43)
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                6 November 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 Decem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December                   ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caixa Bank
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          France against Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de
represented by Maria Patakia and Claudio Loggi, acting as                    l’industrie on the following questions:
Agents.
                                                                             1.     As Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 20 March 2000 (1) is silent on the point,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         does the prohibition by a Member State of banking
                                                                                institutions duly established in its territory from remuner-
                                                                                ating sight accounts and other repayable funds constitute
—      Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                       an obstacle to freedom of establishment?
       within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and              2.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                                                                                what kind of reasons of the public interest might in an
       of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism
       for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the                      appropriate case be relied on to justify such an obstacle?
       professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-
       isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
       general systems for the recognition of qualifications, or,            (1 ) Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
       in any event, by failing to communicate them, the Italian                  Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                    of the business of credit institutions (OJ L 126 of 26.05.2000,
                                                                                p. 1).
       directive; and
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-394/13: Action brought on 2 August 2013 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/22

         Action brought on 2 August 2013 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council
   (Case T-394/13)
   2013/C 274/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1), insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant, and

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council (hereafter, ‘institutions’) made a manifest error of assessment by including plain polyester coated ceramic mugs in the scope of the product under investigation.
   Second plea in law, alleging that, by grouping coated ceramic mugs with other types of stoneware tableware and kitchenware, the institutions failed to make a fair comparison in violation of Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (hereafter, ‘basic Regulation’).
   Third plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation by failing to properly analyze the effects on the situation of the Union industry of the anti-competitive practices investigated by the Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authority). In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators.
   Fourth plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation by failing to make an objective examination of the situation of the Union industry. In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators


title: Case T-160/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Potamianos v Commission (Staff case — Temporary staff — Failure to renew a fixed-term contract)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Potamianos v Commission
   (Case T-160/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Temporary staff - Failure to renew a fixed-term contract)
   (2008/C 313/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerasimos Potamianos (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment not to renew the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gerasimos Potamianos and the Commission to each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case T-143/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/39

         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)
   (Case T-143/16)
   (2016/C 191/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intesia Group Holding GmbH (Böblingen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INTESA’ — EU trade mark No 3 105 277

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 632/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the other parties to pay the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the EUIPO application for revocation and appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-178/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 8525 80 — Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders — Subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Video cameras integrated into sports goggles — ‘Optical zoom’ function — Recording of files from external sources)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/21

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-178/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8525 80 - Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders - Subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 - Video cameras integrated into sports goggles - ‘Optical zoom’ function - Recording of files from external sources))
   (2015/C 138/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vario Tek GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that video cameras integrated into sport goggles, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not have an ‘optical zoom’ function, does not prevent their classification under subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of that nomenclature.

               2)

               The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the version resulting from Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that video cameras integrated in sports goggles, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, offer the possibility to record and store on an interchangeable storage medium video and audio files from an external source precludes their classification under subheading 8525 80 91 of that nomenclature if that recording may be made independently and without relying on external materials or software.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T-362/03 Antonio Milano v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Competition — Refusal of admission to a competition — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/27

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 17 March 2005
   in Case T-362/03 Antonio Milano v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Refusal of admission to a competition - Action for annulment and damages)
   (2005/C 132/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-362/03: Antonio Milano, residing in Isernia (Italy), represented by S. Scarano, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decisions not to admit the applicant to Open Competition COM/A/4/02 for the creation of a list of persons suitable to take the post of head of representation (Grade A 3) in Rome and an order that the defendant compensate the damage incurred — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.


title: Case T-436/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Request to modify the form of order sought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/45

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission
   (Case T-436/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Request to modify the form of order sought - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/60)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otranto, Italy) and Negro Daniele (Otranto) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), in so far as the vine (Vitis) is included in Annex I to that decision and Article 9 of the latter prohibits movement within the European Union, within or out of the demarcated areas.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Right to be informed about the charge — Service of a penalty order — Procedures — Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service — Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence — Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)
   (Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right to be informed about the charge - Service of a penalty order - Procedures - Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service - Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence - Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service))
   (2017/C 168/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)

      intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2, Article 3(1)(c), and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, provides that the accused person who neither resides in that Member State nor has a fixed place of residence in that State or in his Member State of origin is required to appoint an agent for the purposes of service of a penalty order concerning him and that the period for lodging an objection to that order, before it becomes enforceable, runs from service of that order on that agent.
   Article 6 of Directive 2012/13, however, requires that when the penalty order is enforced, as soon as the person concerned has actually become aware of the order, he should be placed in the same situation as if that order had been served on him personally and, in particular, that he have the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection, where necessary, benefiting from having his position restored to the status quo ante.
   It is for the referring court to ensure that the national procedure for the accused person’s position being restored to the status quo ante and the conditions to which the exercise of that procedure is subject are applied in a manner consistent with those requirements and that that procedure thus permits the effective exercise of the rights provided for in Article 6.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-99/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Alesa v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/41

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Alesa v Commission
   (Case T-99/14)
   2014/C 102/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alesa Srl (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: N. Giampaolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               As an interim precautionary measure, order the suspension of the award by the European Commission on behalf of the People’s Republic of China (the beneficiary) of Contract No DCI-ASIE/2013/329-453, published on 3 December 2013, with a value of EUR 9 304 400, to the consortium led by GIZ GmbH;

               —

               As regards the substance, allow the action on the grounds set out in the application and, as a result, annul the award by the European Commission on behalf of the People’s Republic of China of Contract No DCI-ASIE/2013/329-453, published in the TED (Tenders Electronic Daily web portal) on 3 December 2013, with a value of EUR 9 304 400, to the consortium led by GIZ GmbH;

               —

               As regards the substance, on the basis of the various pleas raised in the application, order the European Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 900 000, or whatever sum the Court considers to be fair and equitable relief, for the damage suffered by the applicant on its own account and on account of the members of the SHAREWICH Consortium;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               Within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 277 TFEU, assess the lawfulness/unlawfulness and applicability/inapplicability of Article 266.1 of the Implementing Rules for the Financial Regulation and Article 2.4.13 of the 2013 PRAG (Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EU External Actions) by reference to the other rules on the management and award of public contracts, in so far as those provisions — regardless of the value of the contract and whether it is above the threshold established by the law in force — allow the contracting authority, after it has cancelled the tendering procedure, to enter into negotiations with one or more tenderers directly, without giving prior notification to the other tenderers which are not party to such negotiations.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action has been brought against the Contract Award by which the European Commission has awarded Contract No DCI-ASIE/2013/329-453 to the GIZ GmbH Consortium in the context of Public Notice of Invitation to Tender No 2012/S 223-366462 regarding the technical assistance to be provided to the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) of the People’s Republic of China in transferring European best practice with regard to urbanisation policies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (‘Sustainable urbanisation — Europe-China eco-cities link’).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement, misinterpretation and misapplication of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, and ultra vires exercise of the discretion granted to the European Commission — including all its bodies and delegated authorities — in its role as Contracting Authority;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement, misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2.4.13 of the 2013 Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EU External Actions, and ultra vires exercise of the discretion granted to the European Commission — including all its bodies and delegated authorities — in its role as Contracting Authority;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement, misinterpretation and misapplication of the principles of transparency referred to in Article 15 TFEU, Article 298 TFEU and Articles 102(1) (Principles applicable to public contracts) to 112(1) (Principles of equal treatment and transparency) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, and ultra vires exercise of the discretion granted to the European Commission — including all its bodies and delegated authorities — in its role as Contracting Authority;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement, misinterpretation and misapplication of the fundamental principles laid down by Article 2 of Directive 18/2004/EC and by the other specific references made in that directive to legislation relating to the management and award of public service contracts, and ultra vires exercise of the discretion granted to the European Commission — including all its bodies and delegated authorities — in its role as Contracting Authority.


title: Case C-461/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2013 — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2013 — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-461/13)
   2013/C 352/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Joined party: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as last amended by Directive 2009/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, (‘the Water Framework Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must — unless a derogation is granted — refuse to authorise a project if it may cause a deterioration in the status of a body of surface water, or is that provision merely a statement of an objective for management planning?

               2.

               Is the term ‘deterioration of the status’ in Article 4(1)(a)(i) of the Water Framework Directive to be interpreted as covering only detrimental changes which lead to classification in a lower class in accordance with Annex V to the Directive?

               3.

               If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: under what circumstances does ‘deterioration of the status’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i) of the Water Framework Directive arise?

               4.

               Must the provisions of Article 4(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Water Framework Directive be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must — unless a derogation is granted — refuse to authorise a project if it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the Directive, or are those provisions merely a statement of an objective for management planning?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 114).


title: Case T-532/08: Action brought on 5 December 2008 — Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore NV v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/53

         Action brought on 5 December 2008 — Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore NV v Commission
   (Case T-532/08)
   (2009/C 44/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy (Harjavalta, Finland) and Umicore SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul the contested acts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs for these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek the annulment of the specific entry for a group of four nickel carbonate related compounds — Nickel Hydroxycarbonate, Pure Nickel Carbonate and two other compounds (the ‘Nickel Carbonates’) — in Commission Directive 2008/58/EC (1) (‘the 30th ATP Directive’), which is an adaptation to technical progress (‘ATP’) of Directive 67/548/EEC (2) (‘The Dangerous Substances Directive’).
   The applicants' central claim is that the revised classification of the Nickel Carbonates was not based on the applicable legal criteria. According to the applicants, the revised classification of the Nickel Carbonates is contrary to the requirements of Dangerous Substances Directive since it was unsupported by data and was not an adaptation to technical progress. Instead, it is submitted that the Commission revised the classification of the Nickel Carbonates based on a risk assessment of the Nickel Carbonates carried out for a different purpose under Regulation (EC) No 793/93 (3) (‘The Risk Assessment Regulation’). The applicant further submits that the Commission relied in particular upon a Derogation Statement in which four individual companies, including the applicants, requested permission not to carry out certain testing required under the Risk Assessment Regulation. That Statement, according to the applicants, provided no data to support any of the changes in classification of the Nickel Carbonates that are included in the 30th ATP Directive.
   Thus, the applicants seek the annulment of two separate acts of the European Commission:

               —

               the revised classification of the Nickel Carbonates in entry 028-010-00-0 in Annex 1F to the 30th ATP Directive;

               —

               the Commission's decision to use the Derogation Statement given by the applicants under the Risk Assessment Regulation as the basis for the contested entry.

         In support of their claims the applicants submit that the contested acts do not comply with the requirements of the Dangerous Substances Directive for the following reasons:

               a)

               the contested acts do not comply with the detailed criteria and scientific data requirements for classification in each hazard class under Annex VI to the Dangerous Substances Directive;

               b)

               in adopting the contested acts, the Commission did not consider the intrinsic properties of the Nickel Carbonates in the context of normal handling and use required by the Dangerous Substances Directive;

               c)

               the contested acts are not an adaptation to technical progress of the Dangerous Substances Directive and, as such, have no legal basis in EC law;

               d)

               in taking the contested decision and basing the contested entry on the Nickel Carbonates risk assessment under the Risk Assessment Regulation, rather than applying Article 4 and Annex VI classification criteria, the Commission exceeded its powers under the Dangerous Substances Directive.

         Moreover, the applicants claim that the revised classification of the Nickel Carbonates in the 30th ATP Directive must be annulled because the Commission failed to state the reasons on which it is based, as required by Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1967 196, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (OJ 1993 L 84, p. 1).


title: Case C-549/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet
   (Case C-549/15)
   (2016/C 007/17)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

      Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the terms ‘mass balance’ and ‘mixture’ in Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have an obligation to accept trade in biogas between Member States via an interconnected gas network?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade?

      (1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2000 in Case T-513/93: Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri Doganali v Commission of the European Communities [(Competition — Customs agents — Meaning of "undertaking" and "an association of undertakings" — Decisions adopted by associations of undertakings — Setting of tariffs — Governed by public law — Applicability of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC)]

text:
27.5.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 149/29
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 30 March 2000                                                         of 30 March 2000
in Case T-513/93: Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                   in Case T-65/96: Kish Glass & Co. Ltd v Commission of
Doganali v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                       the European Communities (1)
[(Competition — Customs agents — Meaning of ‘undertak-                      [Competition — Float glass — Rights of defence and
ing’ and ‘an association of undertakings’ — Decisions                       procedural rights of the complainant — Product market and
adopted by associations of undertakings — Setting of tariffs                geographical market — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now
— Governed by public law — Applicability of Article 85(1)                                            Article 82 EC)]
              of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC)]
                                                                                (2000/C 149/55)
                           (2000/C 149/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-65/96 Kish Glass & Co. Ltd, established in Dublin
In Case T-513/93: Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                   (Ireland), represented by M. Byrne, Solicitor, with an address
Doganali, established in Rome, represented by A. Pappalardo,                for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
of the Trapani Bar, A. Marzano, of the Rome Bar, and A.                     Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Commission of the
Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in                  European Communities, (Agents: initially by R. Lyal and R.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er                  Caudwell, and subsequently, in the oral procedure, by B.
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                 Doherty) supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd, estab-
M. Mensi and E. Traversa, subsequently G. Marenco and E.                    lished in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United Kingdom), represent-
Traversa), supported by the Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri              ed by J. Kallaugher, Solicitor, A. Weitbrecht, Berlin and M.
Aerei Internazionali, established in Milan, represented by L.               Hansen, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Magrone Furlotti and C. Osti, of the Rome Bar, with an address              at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, —
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11                  application for annulment of the Commission Decision of
Rue Goethe — application for annulment of Commission                        21 February 1996 (IV/34.193 — Kish Glass) rejecting the
Decision 93/438/EEC of 30 June 1993 relating to a proceeding                complaint made by the applicant on 17 January 1992 pursuant
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.407 — CNSD)                 to Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February
(OJ 1993 L 203, p. 27) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 85 of the
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J.D. Cooke,                     Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) alleging
President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M.           an infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the               EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura
Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 March 2000, the operative                  Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio
part of which is as follows:                                                González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                            ment on 30 March 2000, in which it:
1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                            1. Dismisses the application;
2. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs, together with those
     incurred by the Commission and by the Associazione Italiana dei        2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
     Corrieri Aerei Internazionali, intervener.
(1) OJ C 312 of 18.11.1993.                                                 (1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.


title: Case T-417/12: Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/6

         Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)
   (Case T-417/12)
   2012/C 373/11
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SFC Jardibric (St Jean de la Ruelle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aqua Center Europa, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2012 in Case R 2230/2010-4, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 September 2010;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUA FLOW’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19 and 21 — Community trade mark No 1162064

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Aqua Center Europa, SA

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Figurative national mark including the word element ‘VAQUA FLOW’ for goods in Class 11

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granting the application for cancellation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejecting the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; Absence of likelihood of confusion as to the goods; Absence of confusion between the signs.


title: Case C-461/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Decision 2011/278/EU — Change to the allocation — Article 24(1) — Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information — Scope)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-461/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Change to the allocation - Article 24(1) - Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information - Scope))
   (2016/C 402/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from requiring undertakings which, being subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading obligation within the European Union, receive a free allocation of those allowances to provide information relating to all planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation, without limiting that requirement solely to information relating to changes that would affect the allocation.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire - Legal basis - Article 43 of the EC Treaty - Article 130s of the EC Treaty - Parliament's prerogatives)

text:
1.5.1999                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 121/5
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — That obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national
                                                                                court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                       remuneration or the level thereof.
                         of 25 February 1999                                 The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of
                                                                             national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret
                                                                             them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of
in Case C-131/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             that directive.
the Pretura Circondariable, Bologna): Analisa Carbonari
and Others v. Università degli Studi di Bologna and
                                Others (1)                                   (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
(Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods —
                   Remuneration — Direct effect)
                            (1999/C 121/08)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               of 25 February 1999
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              in Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97: European Parlia-
In Case C-131/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                          ment v. Council of the European Union (1)
the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale (District Magistrates’
Court), Bologna, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-             (Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric
ings pending before that court between Annalisa Carbonari                    pollution and fire — Legal basis — Article 43 of the EC
and Others and Università degli Studi di Bologna, Ministero                  Treaty — Article 130s of the EC Treaty — Parliament’s
della Sanità, Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica,                                      prerogatives)
Ministero del Tesoro — on the interpretation of Council
Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive
75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas,                                               (1999/C 121/09)
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in
medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of
the right of establishment and freedom to provide services                                        (Language of the case: French)
and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ L 43, 15.2.1982,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
p. 21) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C.                                            in the European Court Reports)
Moitinho de Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L; Sevón and M.                     In Joined Cases C-164/97: European Parliament (Agents:
Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Johann Schoo and João Sant’ Anna) v. Council of the European
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    Union (Agents: John Carbery and Thérèse Blanchet), supported
25 February 1999 in which it has ruled:                                      by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Xavier
                                                                             Lewis and Pieter van Nuffel) — application for the annulment
Article 2(1) (c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975             of Council Regulation (EC) No 307/97 of 17 February 1997
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation       amending Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of
or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors and point 1     the Community’s forests against atmospheric pollution (OJ L
of the Annex thereto, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC              51, 21.2.1997, p. 9) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 308/97
of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning                  of 17 February 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92
the mutal recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of        on protection of the Community’s forests against fire (OJ L 51,
formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate          21.2.1997, p. 11) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide      J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C.
services and Directive 75/363/EEC, must be interpreted as follows:           Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,
                                                                             Judges; Advocate-General: F. G. Jacobs; Registrar: H. A. Rühl,
— The obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods             Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 25 February
     of training in specialised medicine is binding only in respect of       1999, in which it:
     the medical specialties which are common to all the Member
     States or to two or more of them and are mentioned in Article 5
     or Article 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975,           1. annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 307/97 of 17 February
                                                                                1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 on the
— That obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so far             protection of the Community’s forests against atmospheric
     as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit from          pollution and Council Regulation (EC) No 308/97 of 17 Febru-
     the system of mutual recognition established by Directive                    ary 1997 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on
     75/362/EEC, that his training be full-time and remunerated,                  protection of the Community’s forests against fire;
 ---pagebreak--- C 121/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             1.5.1999
2. declares that the annulled Regulations are to remain in force            2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     until the Council adopts, within a reasonable period, new
     regulations having the same subject matter;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.
3. orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
4. orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its
     own costs.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 February 1999
                                                                            in Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)
                         of 25 February 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 121/11)
 in Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 94/46/EC)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 121/10)
                                                                            In Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: Pieter van Nuffel) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Anni
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                            adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Concil of 26
                     in the European Court Reports)                         October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of
                                                                            certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the
                                                                            right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ L
In Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communities                     280, 29.10.1994, p. 83), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and José F. Crespo Carrillo) v. Grand             to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the Court (Third
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — application                   Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                   Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges;
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October 1994                       has given a judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:
amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive 90/388/EEC in
particular with regard to satellite communications (OJ L 268,
19.10.1994, p. 15), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court           1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann                         comply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
(Rapporteur) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; Advocate-General:                     and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
S. Alber, Registrat: R. Grass, has given a judgment on                          purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
25 February 1999, in wihich it:                                                 purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare
                                                                                basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that Directive;
1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to comply with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October
     1994 amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive                       (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
     90/388/EEC in particular with regard to satellite communi-
     cations, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive;


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/45

         Removal from the Register of Case T-453/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/84)

      (Language of the case: Hungarian)

   By order of 27 May 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-453/04, Péter Lesetár v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-130/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark incorporating the word eliza — Earlier Community word mark ELISE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)
   (Case T-130/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark incorporating the word eliza - Earlier Community word mark ELISE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 134/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eliza Corporation (Beverly, United States) (represented by: R. Köbbing, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Went Computing Consultancy Group BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1244/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Went Computing Consultancy Group BV and Eliza Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Eliza Corporation to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Went Computing Consultancy Group BV.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-349/12: Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Peró Gáz Kft v János Balla

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Peró Gáz Kft v János Balla
   (Case C-349/12) (1)

   2013/C 129/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case T-140/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Application for marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib — EMA decision refusing to validate the application for marketing authorisation — Market exclusivity)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
   (Case T-140/12) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Application for marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib - EMA decision refusing to validate the application for marketing authorisation - Market exclusivity))
   (2015/C 081/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands); and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, M. Tovar Gomis and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Mihaylova and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 24 January 2012 refusing to validate the applicants’ application for authorisation to place imatinib Ratiopharm, a generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib, on the market, in so far as concerns therapeutic indications for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders TEVA Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case F-105/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Davids v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary agents — Temporary agent occupying a permanent post — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Discretion of the administration — Article 8 of the CEOS — Article 4 of the Decision of the Director General of OLAF of 30 June 2005 on a new policy for the engagement and use of OLAF's temporary agents — Maximum duration of temporary staff contracts — Abuse of rights)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Davids v Commission
   (Case F-105/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary agents - Temporary agent occupying a permanent post - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Discretion of the administration - Article 8 of the CEOS - Article 4 of the Decision of the Director General of OLAF of 30 June 2005 on a new policy for the engagement and use of OLAF's temporary agents - Maximum duration of temporary staff contracts - Abuse of rights)
   2012/C 227/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans Davids (Doorn, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.12, p. 26.


title: Case C-293/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 June 2014  — Gerhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 June 2014 — Gerhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer
   (Case C-293/14)
   2014/C 303/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerhart Hiebler

      Defendant: Walter Schlagbauer

      Questions referred

               1.

               In accordance with Article 2(2)(i) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, (1) is the entire commercial activity of a chimney sweep excluded from the scope of that directive because chimney sweeps also perform tasks in the field of fire safety regulation (fire safety inspections, expert reports in the course of building approval procedures etc.)?
               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

               2.

               Is a scheme, provided for in national law, under which the licence to trade as a chimney sweep is limited to a particular ‘Kehrgebiet’ (sweeping area) compatible with Article 10(4) and Article 15(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Case C-244/15: Action brought on 27 May 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/10

         Action brought on 27 May 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-244/15)
   (2015/C 254/13)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Τriantafyllou and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for exemption from inheritance tax on the first place of residence, which gives rise to discrimination because it applies only to EU nationals who reside in Greece, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The different tax treatment of non-property owning residents in Greece (who are exempted from inheritance tax) and persons who are not resident in Greece, with respect to the first immoveable property which they acquire by inheritance, is an unjustified restriction on free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU (see also Article 65 TFEU).

               2.

               The different tax treatment of residents in Greece and non-residents constitutes unjustified different treatment of comparable situations, in so far as non-residents can move to Greece, when they will be in the same situation as those who are already resident in Greece, and in so far as the exemption is not related to personal occupancy of the inherited immoveable property, and consequently the place where a person is resident cannot be the criterion for the granting of the tax exemption. The place of residence conceals the criterion of nationality, since residents in Greece will predominantly be Greeks and the converse is the case.

               3.

               The distinction in question, which is not related to personal occupancy, cannot be justified by considerations of social policy or by the need to protect public revenue.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Genova by order of that court of 7 October 1996 in the case of Ignazio Messina & Co. SPA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-338/96)

text:
No C 370/6            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
     account the exact amount of the tax paid in another                          Kingdom conforms to the requirements of Directive
     State but only a tax credit which may be lower meets                         80/778/EEC           in    that   maximum   admissible
     the objective assigned to the Member States of                               concentrations for several parameters in the
     abolishing double taxation,                                                  Directive are exceeded,
— Whether Article 48 must be interpreted as meaning that                     the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
     nationals of a Member State who are frontier workers                    under the Treaty;
     in another Member State may not, by reason of a tax
     credit mechanism of the type provided for by the                   — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
     Franco-German Convention , be taxed more heavily
     than persons whose occupational activity is pursued in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     their State of residence .
                                                                        The grounds on which the Commission considers that the
                                                                        United Kingdom 's application of the Directive is defective
                                                                        may be summarised as follows :
                                                                        — by the acceptance of ' undertakings' from the water
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile                 companies, failure to enforce their compliance with the
di Genova by order of that court of 7 October 1996 in the                    requirements of the Directive, and
case of Ignazio Messina & Co. SPA v. Amministrazione
                     delle Finanze dello Stato                          — failure to ensure that the quality of water supplied in
                         ( Case C-338/96 )                                   several parts of the United Kingdom conforms to the
                                                                             requirements of the Directive.
                            ( 96/C 370/ 13 )
                                                                        (') Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
                                                                            quality of water intended for human consumption ( OJ No
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 ).
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
di Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 7 October 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio
Messina & Co., SPA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
Stato on the questions which are identical to those in Cases            Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 (')•                                  the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
(•) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p . 3 .                                                          ( Case C-341/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 15 )
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of                  Communities on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the United Kingdom                  the European Communities, represented by Claudia
                         ( Case C-340/96 )                              Schmidt, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                            ( 96/C 370/ 14                              Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre C254, Kirchberg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
October 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de                    measures necessary in order to comply with Council
la Cruz, member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.                         Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                                                                             procedures for the awards of public supply
                                                                             contracts ('), the Federal Republic of Germany has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
                                                                             of Article 189 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
— declare that:                                                              Article 34 ( 1 ) of the said Directive,
     — by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings, to                — declare, in the alternative, that the Federal Republic of
         enforce compliance by water companies with the                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligation forthwith to
         requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC ( : ), and                     inform the Commission of the relevant measures
                                                                             adopted to transpose the Directive,
     — by failing, thereby, to ensure that the quality of
         water supplied in several parts of the United                  — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-437/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux (France)) — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL (Competition — Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs — Collective agreement — Compulsory affiliation to a specific insuring body — Express exclusion of any possibility of exemption from affiliation — Concept of an undertaking)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux (France)) — AG2R Prévoyance v Beaudout Père et Fils SARL
   (Case C-437/09) (1)

   (Competition - Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs - Collective agreement - Compulsory affiliation to a specific insuring body - Express exclusion of any possibility of exemption from affiliation - Concept of an undertaking)
   2011/C 130/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

      Defendant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Grande Instance de Périgueux — Competition — National legislation making affiliation to a single designated insurer compulsory for all undertakings in a given professional sector — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC — Body claiming payment of contributions from an undertaking which had already entered into a contract of insurance offering better cover — Explicit exclusion of any possibility of waiver of the affiliation obligation — Whether such an affiliation scheme is compatible with Articles 81 EC and 82 EC — Possible risk of abuse of a dominant position

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) EU, must be interpreted as not precluding the decision by the public authorities to make compulsory, at the request of the organisations representing employers and employees within a given occupational sector, an agreement which is the result of collective bargaining and which provides for compulsory affiliation to a scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs for all undertakings within the sector concerned, without any possibility of exemption.

               2.

               Inasmuch as the activity consisting in the management of a scheme for supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs such as that at issue in the main proceedings is to be classified as economic — this being a matter for the national court to determine — Articles 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, public authorities from granting a provident society an exclusive right to manage that scheme, without any possibility for undertakings within the occupational sector concerned to be exempted from affiliation to that scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 October 1996 in Case T-378/94: Josephus Knijff v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Members of the temporary staff recruited in consultation with the National Audit Institutions - Application of the rules on their grading)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354 /25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Denmark ), 0rskov Christensens Staalskibsværft A/S,
                     of 16 October 1996                             established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Aarhus Flydedok
                                                                    A/S , established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by
in Case T-378/94: Josephus Knijff v. Court of Auditors of           Jan-Erik Svensson , of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address
                the European Communities (')                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
(Officials — Members of the temporary staff recruited in            Dupont, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
consultation with the National Audit Institutions —                 Kingdom of Denmark ( Agent : Peter Biering ), against
           Application of the rules on their grading)               Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Anders
                         ( 96/C 354/49 )                            Christian Jessen and Ben Smulders ), supported by the
                                                                    Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd
                                                                    Kloke and , at the hearing, Michael Schütte ) and MTW
                (Language of the case: French)                      Schiffswerft GmbH ( formerly Meerestechnik Werft ),
                                                                    established in Wismar ( Germany ), represented by
In Case T-378/94 : Josephus Knijff, formerly a member of            Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch , Rechtsanwälte ,
the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors of the                 Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities, residing at Assenois ( Belgium ),             Chambers of Francois Turk , 13B Avenue Guillaume —
represented by Jean-Paul Noesen , of the Luxembourg Bar,            application for annulment, in whole or in part, of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's           Commission decision of 1 1 May 1 994 on the payment of the
Chambers at 18 , rue des Glacis v. Court of Auditors of the         second tranche of State aid to MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Sténier, Jan             formerly Meerestechnik Werft — the Court of First Instance
Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) — application for annulment            (Third Chamber , Extended Composition ), composed of
of the decision of 9 February 1994 refusing to adjust the           C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A.
applicant's grading, and of the decision of 29 August 1994          Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant — the            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.          22 October 1996 , in which it:
Lenaerts , President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
judgment on 16 October 1996 , the operative part of which
is as follows :
                                                                    2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs ofthe proceedings,
 1 . The application is dismissed.                                       including the costs incurred by the intervener, MTW;
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                    3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.
 (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 October 1996
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 in Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og                                          of 22 October 1996
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen and
                                                                     in Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd . v. Commission of the
    Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                                European Communities (')
 (State aids — Shipbuilding — Exceptional rules —
    Shipyards in the former German Democratic Republic)              (State aid — Refusal of the Commission to propose
                                                                      'appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the
                            96/ C 354/50
                                                                          Treaty — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/51
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 In Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen,
 established in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsværft A/S,                   In Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd ., established in Cheshire
 established in Assens ( Denmark ), Burmeister & Wain                ( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S ,           Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Fredericia                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden , 8
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Fredericia ( Denmark ),             Boulevard Royal, supported by Verein Deutsche
 Odense Staalskibsværft A/S, established in Odense                    Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
  ( Denmark ), Svendborg Værft A/S, established in Svendborg         represented by Thomas Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf,


title: Case T-246/09: Action brought on 29 June 2009 — Insula v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/30

         Action brought on 29 June 2009 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-246/09)
   2009/C 193/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Marsal and J.-D. Simonet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action to be admissible and well-founded;

               —

               declare that the Commission’s application for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 189 241,64 is unfounded and, accordingly, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the amount of EUR 189 241,64;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages of EUR 212 597;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the applicant has the right to a compensatory allowance of EUR 230 025;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, which is based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests that the Court find that the debit notes of 25 September 2008, 26 March 2009 and 26 May 2009, by which the Commission called, following an audit report by OLAF, for the recovery of advances paid to the applicant, are inconsistent with the clauses of the contracts IST-2001-35077 DIAS.NET and IST-1999-20896 MEDIS concluded in the context of a specific programme for Community research, technological development and demonstration activities in the field of the information society (1998-2002). In the alternative, the applicant submits a claim for damages.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   By its first plea, it disputes that the debt claimed by the Commission is due and submits that all the costs it declared to the Commission should be regarded as eligible.
   By its second plea, it submits that the Commission infringed the obligation to cooperate in good faith in performing the contract in the sense that it did not properly carry out it own contractual obligations, in particular by waiting for a long time before replying to the proposal for additional action submitted by the applicant and by wrongfully terminating the MEDIS contract on the basis of inadequate results even though that issue had never been raised previously and could, in the applicant’s view, only have been attributed to the Commission.
   By its third plea, the applicant invokes the disproportionate nature of the pecuniary sanction imposed by the Commission for the alleged failure to comply with certain accounting obligations which, even if they were to be proven to exist, would not give rise to a right, in accordance with the principles of Belgian administrative and civil law, to reimbursement of almost all of the advances agreed to. Consequently, the applicant maintains that it has a right to compensation in respect of the services carried out.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission failed to comply with the principle of sound administration and of the rights to a fair hearing in the management of the verification and audit process.


title: Case C-402/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Cypra Limited v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Cypra Limited v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-402/13)
   2013/C 274/23
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cypra Limited

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus, represented by the Minister for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment and the Director of Veterinary Services

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (1) confer upon the competent authority a discretion to determine the time at which a particular slaughter of animals takes place, in view of its obligation to appoint an official veterinarian for the purposes of carrying out supervision in relation to the slaughter of animals, or is it obliged to appoint such a veterinarian at the time that the slaughter will take place, as determined by the slaughterer?

               2.

               Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 confer upon the competent authority a discretion to refuse to appoint an official veterinarian for the carrying out of veterinary supervision of the lawful slaughter of animals when it is informed that the slaughter of animals will take place at a particular time, at a licensed slaughterhouse?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206).