title: Case C-42/01: Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 108/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.4.2001
      to the permissible sound power level of compressors (20)           The United Kingdom has not notified the Commission of
      as amended by Directive 85/406/EEC(21), Council Direc-             the transposition into national law of the aforementioned
      tive 84/534/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-               directives to cover the territory of Gibraltar. The Commission
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            therefore maintains that the United Kingdom is in breach of
      permissible sound power level of tower cranes (22) as              its obligations under the Treaty.
      amended by Directive 87/405/EEC (23), Council Directive
      84/535/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            (1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1 (SE SER1 67, p. 234).
                                                                         (2) OJ L 133, 30.5.1988, p. 1.
      permissible sound power level of welding generators (24)
                                                                         (3) OJ L 228, 17.8.1991, p. 67.
      as amended by Directive 85/407/EEC (25), Council Direc-            (4) OJ L 154, 5.6.1992, p. 1.
      tive 84/536/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approxi-               (5) OJ L 383, 29.12.1992, p. 113.
      mation of the laws in the Member States relating to the            (6) OJ L 110, 4.5.1993, p. 20.
      permissible sound power level of power generators (26) as          (7) OJ L 227, 8.9.1993, p. 9.
      amended by Directive 85/408/EEC (27), Council Directive            (8) OJ L 258, 16.10.1993, p. 29.
      84/537/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation               (9) OJ L 13, 15.1.1994, p. 1.
      of the laws in the Member States relating to the permiss-          (10) OJ L 294, 30.11.1993, p. 21.
      ible sound power level of powered hand-held concrete-              (11) OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
      breakers and picks (28) as amended by Directive                    (12) OJ L 248, 30.9.1996, p. 1.
                                                                         (13) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 19.
      85/409/EEC (29), Council Directive 84/538/EEC of
                                                                         (14) OJ L 15, 17.1.1987, p. 29.
      17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws in              (15) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 81.
      the Member States relating to the permissible sound                (16) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58.
      power level of lawnmowers (30) as amended by Directive             (17) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 15.
      87/252/EEC (31), Directive 88/180/EEC (32) and Directive           (18) OJ L 376, 30.12.1981, p. 49.
      88/181/EEC (33), Council Directive 86/594/EEC of                   (19) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 9.
      1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by house-                (20) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 123.
      hold appliances(34), Council Directive 86/662/EEC of               (21) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 11.
      22 December 1986 on the limitation of noise emitted by             (22) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 130.
      hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers,            (23) OJ L 220, 8.8.1987, p. 60.
                                                                         (24) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 142.
      loaders and excavator-loaders (35) as amended by Direc-
                                                                         (25) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 16.
      tive 89/514/EEC (36) and Directive 95/27/EC (37), Euro-            (26) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 149.
      pean Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                  (27) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 18.
      20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging                        (28) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 156.
      waste (38) and Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June            (29) OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 20.
      1997 (39) adapting to technical progress for the second            (30) OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 171.
      time Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate                (31) OJ L 117, 5.5.1987, p. 22.
      release into the environment of genetically modified               (32) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 69.
      organisms (40) or in any event by failing to inform the            (33) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 71.
      Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its            (34) OJ L 344, 6.12.1986, p. 24.
                                                                         (35) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
      obligations under these directives
                                                                         (36) OJ L 253, 30.8.1989, p. 35.
                                                                         (37) OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 14.
                                                                         (38) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         (39) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 72.
                                                                         (40) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty provides
that directives are to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,      Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Portuguese
on each Member State to which they are addressed. The first              Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty provides that Member                                               ties
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                                   (Case C-42/01)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/09)
The Commission considers that it follows from the provisions             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty and of the 1972 Act of Accession to the                 ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom                   Communities on 1 February 2001 by the Portuguese Republic,
that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to extend the             represented by L. Inês Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, acting as
transposition of the directives referred to in its conclusions to        Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, advogado, with an address
cover the territory of Gibraltar.                                        for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  by the Portuguese Republic constitute restrictions on the
                                                                             freedom of establishment and free movement of capital
                                                                             and, thus, are not in pursuit of legitimate interests,
1.    declare null and void Commission Decision C(2000)3543                  compatible with Community law, for the purposes of
      final, of 22 November 2000, concerning a proceeding                    Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.
      pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 4064/89 (1) of 21 December 1989 on the con-
      trol of concentrations between undertakings (Case
      No COMPN.2054 - Secil/Holderbank/Cimpor);                         —    Breach of Article 7(1), in fine, EC (ex Article 4(1) in fine,
                                                                             of the EC Treaty) and of Article 21(1) and the third
                                                                             paragraph of Article 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 4064/89: the Commission has no power to adopt the
                                                                             contested decision. The third paragraph of Article 21(3)
                                                                             defines, very clearly, the procedural requirements which
                                                                             must be fulfilled in order for such a decision to be valid.
                                                                             Failure by a State to inform, as is the case here, does not
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              provide the Commission with a legal basis for adopting a
                                                                             decision. It is open to the Commission to open infringe-
                                                                             ment proceedings so that it does not have to look to
                                                                             Article 21(3) for justification for a power exercised
Portugal has brought the present action on the ground that it                contrary to the legal requirements expressly laid down in
is not possible to ascertain what effects the Commission                     that provision.
attributes to the withdrawal, on 9 January 2001, of the
notification by Holderbel and Secil of their bid to acquire
shares in the capital of Cimpor, a withdrawal which, in the
view of the applicant, results in the lapse of the contested            —    Breach of Article 220 EC (ex Article 164 of the EC Treaty)
decision.                                                                    and of Article 21(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89: the
                                                                             Commission infringed the Court’s jurisdiction. Pending
                                                                             an action for failure to fulfil obligations, brought by the
                                                                             Commission for a finding by the Court that the Portugue-
Unlawfulness of the contested decision in that it constitutes                se privatisation scheme under, in particular, Decree-
                                                                             Law No 380/93 is contrary to Community law, the
                                                                             Commission cannot impose on the Member State con-
—     Breach of Article 253 EC (ex Article 190 of the EC                     cerned an obligation which, since it is based on a
      Treaty): absence of a precise legal provision granting                 presumption of incompatibility, amounts to an unlawful
      sufficient authorisation. It is not possible to infer from             measure which prejudges the as-yet-unknown judgment
      any of the references to Article 21 of Regulation No                   to be delivered by the Community judicature.
      4064/89 a precise indication of how and why that
      provision empowers the Commission, in the absence of
      communication of the ‘legitimate interests’ which the
      ‘appropriate measures’ are intended to protect, as pro-
      vided for in the third paragraph of Article 21(3), to rule        —    Breach of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC (formerly
      on the compatibility with Community law of‘ interests                  the third paragraph of Article 3b of the EC Treaty): the
      (allegedly) underlying the orders made by the Minister for             contested decision gravely and manifestly infringes the
      Finances on 5 July and 11 August 2000’.                                principle of proportionality. Even supposing that the
                                                                             Portuguese Republic had infringed Community law with
                                                                             regard to a concentration which has a ‘Community
                                                                             dimension’, that is to say the merger between Holderbank
—     Breach of Article 253 EC (ex Article 190 of the EC                     and Cimpor, the Commission should have made the
      Treaty): no ground for alleged incompatibility between                 solution to that hypothetical infringement fit the sphere
      Community law and national measures. If the system                     in which it had allegedly occurred, without interfering
      which allows for possible limits on the acquisition of                 with the sphere reserved to the Portuguese Republic to
      large numbers of shares in the capital of privatised                   assess a concentration which does not have a ‘Community
      undertakings, together with the national measures, at                  dimension’, namely the Secil/Cimpor merger.
      issue here, were deemed to constitute ‘restrictions’, which
      are not discriminatory, on the freedom of establishment
      and free movement of capital in the EC, it would then be
      necessary to analyse its possible justification by reference
      not only to the express derogations provided by the               —    Breach of Article 226 EC (ex Article 169 of the EC
      Treaty, but also to the imperative reasons in the general              Treaty): abuse of process. In order to avoid what it
      interest which have been accepted in respect of both                   describes as the exclusion of the effectiveness of Article
      those fields. However, the Commission merely adopted a                 21(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, the Commission
      decision, devoid of any factual or legal grounds to                    deems itself empowered, in the absence of formal com-
      substantiate it, according to which the measures adopted               munication, to declare incompatible with Community
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.4.2001
      law the interests underlying the Ministerial orders. The           Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic
      Commission’s claim that Article 21(3) may be understood            Cruises and other companies against the order made on
      as conferring a duty on it to act by way of decision as if         12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court
      its role as ‘guardian of the treaties’, together with the          of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      overriding interests of Community law, required such               T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of
      a solution, makes no sense whatever. In fact, if the               the European Union and Commission of the European
      Commission had reason to believe that the Portuguese                                          Communities
      Republic infringed a particular duty to inform, the proper
      procedure, and the only one in this case, was to bring
      infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-49/01 P)
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/11)
                                                                         An appeal against the order made on 12 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic
                                                                         Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and
Action brought on 2 February 2001 by Commission of                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
    the European Communities against Italian Republic                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other
                                                                         companies, represented by Professor N. Skandamis, of the
                          (Case C-46/01)                                 Athens Bar, and A. Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar.
                         (2001/C 108/10)
                                                                         The appellants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
represented by Hans Støvlbaek and Roberto Amorosi, acting                      12 December 2000;
as Agents.
                                                                         —     refer back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the action for damages brought by the appellants on
                                                                               9 September 1999;
—     declare that, by failing to draw up and forward to
      the Commission the appropriate plans, outlines and
      summary inventories necessary to comply with Articles              —     order the Council of the European Union and the
      11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 Sep-                 European Commission to pay the costs.
      tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
      nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PC13/PCT), the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those provisions of the directive;and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Italian Republic.
                                                                         1.    Inadequate reasoning: the dismissal of the action for
                                                                               damages as clearly unfounded denied the applicants
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                their procedural right to put forward and to develop
                                                                               sufficiently their arguments concerning a case which is of
The Italian authorities should have taken steps to communicate                 major importance and, in many respects, novel for the
to the Commission the various plans, outlines and summary                      case-law.
inventories, provided for by Articles 11 and 4(1) of the
directive referred to in the Commission’s application, by
16 September 1999. To date, it has not yet done so.                      2.    Misinterpretation of the condition requiring a direct
                                                                               causal link.
(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.


title: Case C-180/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Meriem Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
C 204/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
2. Is it compatible with free movement of capital for consent            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
     of the land transfer authority, which has constitutive effect,      Gerichtshof by order of 27 April 1999 in the case of Hugo
     to be required for the acquisition of building land?                  Boss Aktiengesellschaft v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O.
3. What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of                                       (Case C-183/99)
     Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on new types of
     situations requiring consent under land transfer law created
                                                                                (1999/C 204/58)
     after the signature of the EEA Agreement on 2 May 1992?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 27 April 1999 from the
                                                                         Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1999, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo Boss Aktiengesellschaft
                                                                         v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O. on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Meriem                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
              Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                           down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
                                                                         export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                         counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                         (Case C-180/99)                                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                         situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
                                                                         the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
                         (1999/C 204/57)                                 the European Community, temporarily detained by the
                                                                         customs authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                         regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                    its registered office in a Member State of the European
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                Community?
received at the Court Registry on 17 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Meriem Addou v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre,
     nationals of a non-member country if such persons have              by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of
     no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March              Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d’Aide Sociale
     1957 establishing the European Community, as amended                                d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
     by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
                                                                                (Case C-184/99)
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case where
     a refugee working as an employed person and the members                                     (1999/C 204/59)
     of his family have travelled directly to a Member State
     from a non-member country and have not moved within                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the Community?                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Travail
                                                                         de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, of 7 May
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: Is a               1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1999, for a
     family benefit such as child-raising allowance under the            preliminary ruling in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the
     Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz (German Federal Law on                   Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve on
     Child-Raising Allowance) also payable to the spouse of              the following questions:
     such an employed person who is likewise not a national of
     a Member State and who is herself neither an employed               1. Is it contrary to Community law — more particularly, the
     person nor a recognised refugee?                                        principles of European citizenship and of non-
                                                                             discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty
                                                                             established in the European Community — for entitlement
(1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),       to a social benefit under a non-contributory scheme, such
    p. 416.                                                                  as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974
                                                                             on the minimum means of subsistence, to be conferred
                                                                             only on nationals of the Member States to whom Regu-
                                                                             lation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1) applies
                                                                             and not on all citizens of the Union?


title: Case C-113/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/49/EC — Investment firms and credit institutions — Capital adequacy — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-113/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/49/EC - Investment firms and credit institutions - Capital adequacy - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 19/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) and, in particular, Articles 17, 22 to 25, 30, 33, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 50 and Annexes I, II and VII thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-410/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Pohjanmäki v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2013 promotion year — Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and the Joint Consultative Committee — Absence of staff reports — Failure on the part of the members of the JCC to consult the staff reports — Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur in the JCC with those of the former rapporteur — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Pohjanmäki v Council
   (Case T-410/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2013 promotion year - Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and the Joint Consultative Committee - Absence of staff reports - Failure on the part of the members of the JCC to consult the staff reports - Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur in the JCC with those of the former rapporteur - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 392/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jaana Pohjanmäki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2015, Pohjanmäki v Council (F-44/14, EU:F:2015:46) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Jaana Pohjanmäki to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-399/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/35
If the directive applies,                                                       measures. Thus it is for the Commission, as a general
                                                                                rule, to monitor State aid. Certainly, the Council has a
                                                                                decision-making power in the matter but it is an excep-
is Annex I to the directive to be interpreted as meaning that                   tional power which must be strictly interpreted.
leaves of the vine are classified in the product group Leaf
vegetables and fresh herbs and Annex II as meaning that leaves
of the vine are classified under the point Herbs, Others?
                                                                          —     Misuse of powers and procedure: The power conferred
                                                                                on the Council exceptionally to authorise State aid instead
In which product group and point are leaves of the vine to be                   of the Commission and, where proceedings are initiated,
classified if they are not to be classified under the point Herbs,              subject to closely defined time-limits, was used in order
Others?                                                                         to neutralise the Commission’s Decision of 17 February
                                                                                2003, that is to say to annul its effects, by authorising aid
                                                                                identical to the aid declared incompatible. The contested
(1) OJ L 350 of 14.12.1990, p. 71.
                                                                                decision is also vitiated by a misuse of powers because it
                                                                                was adopted in order to produce the same effects as an
                                                                                annulment judgment by the Court of Justice.
                                                                          —     Infringement of the Treaty and of the general principles
Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Com-                                 of Community law. The contested decision not only
mission of the European Communities against the Council                         was adopted in breach of the third subparagraph of
                     of the European Union                                      Article 88(2) EC but also disturbs the institutional
                                                                                equilibrium established by the Treaty as between the
                                                                                Commission and the Council. That equilibrium entails
                          (Case C-399/03)                                       observance by the other institutions, in particular the
                                                                                Council, of the Commission’s sphere of competence. That
                         (2003/C 275/52)                                        means that, except in the case of an express derogatory
                                                                                power, the Council may not impinge on the Com-
                                                                                mission’s sphere of competence. However, in the present
                                                                                case, the Council acted ultra vires. The procedure at issue
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         also disturbs the equilibrium between the ‘executive’
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    institutions and the Community judicature and, in general
ties on 25 September 2003 by the Commission of the                              terms, jeopardises the adjudication system established by
European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and V. di                         the Treaty. Finally, the Council Decision infringes the
Bucci, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                         substantive law in the matter of State aid and Council
Luxembourg.                                                                     Directive 69/335/EEC, as well as the obligation in that
                                                                                regard to provide a statement of reasons.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          —     In the alternative, manifest error of assessment and
1)    annul Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 (1),                   misuse of powers as to the existence of exceptional
                                                                                circumstances. The Council manifestly erred in its assess-
2)    order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     ment in particular by deeming exceptional circumstances
                                                                                to exist owing to the fact that Belgium did not have the
                                                                                time necessary to put in place measures different from
                                                                                those declared incompatible with the common market by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 in favour
                                                                                of coordination centres established in its territory.
The Council Decision of 16 July 2003 authorised the granting
of aid identical to aid declared incompatible by the Com-
mission’s final negative decision of 17 February 2003. An
individual Council Decision on State aid is in principle                  (1) Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 on the granting
extraneous to the monitoring system established by the Treaty                 of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination centres
and must be confined to exceptional situations.                               in Belgium (OJ 2003 L 184, p. 17).
The Council Decision is vitiated in several regards:
—     Lack of competence of the Council: Only a body indepen-
      dent of the States providing aid is in a position to
      examine objectively and impartially the different national


title: Case C-128/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Angelo Molinari v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Angelo Molinari v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   (Case C-128/07)
   (2007/C 117/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale Di Latina
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelo Molinari

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the judgment in Case C-207/04 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the Italian legislature should have extended to men the advantageous age-limit that applies to women?

               2.

               Must it be held in the present case that a rate equal to half of the rate applied for the taxation of severance pay must be applied to sums received as voluntary redundancy incentives by men who have passed the age of 50?

               3.

               Given that amounts paid by way of personal income tax do not form part of the taxpayer's salary since they are not paid by the employer in respect of the employment, and given that an amount paid by an employer to an employee as an incentive is not in the nature of pay, is it consistent with Community law to rule that the application of different age limits — namely 50 years of age for women and 55 years of age for men — is contrary to Community law, in light of the fact that Directive No 79/7 (2) permits the Member States to preserve different pensionable ages?

               4.

               Must Community law (Council Directive 76/207/EEC (3) of 9 February 1976, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex) be interpreted as precluding — or as not precluding — application of the relevant national rules that gave rise to the present case, with the effect that the national legislation (Article 17(4a) (now Article 19(4a) of DPR No 917/86) must be regarded as incompatible — or compatible — with Community law?

      (1)  Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona [2005] ECR I-7453.

      (2)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

      (3)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2005 in Case T-445/04 Energy Technologies ET S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/36

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 February 2005
   in Case T-445/04 Energy Technologies ET S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Representation by a lawyer - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 182/68)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-445/04: Energy Technologies ET S.A., established in Fribourg (Switzerland), represented by A. Boman, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL, established in Hospitalet de Llobregat (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 July 2004 (Case R 366/2002-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark UNEX as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-274/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/27

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission
   (Case T-274/14)
   2014/C 223/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (Meitingen, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2014/C 37/07 of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources) in the version of 25 October 2008, as amended by Article 5 of the law of 20 December 2012, and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, in so far as the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users such as the applicant is classified as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and provisionally declared incompatible with the internal market in that decision.

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — no State aid

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the support mechanism of the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (hereinafter referred to as EEG) as a whole and particularly the special compensation regime for energy-intensive users did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there is no direct or indirect transfer of State resources. The support is financed solely from private resources, the financing flows of which are not controlled by any State authority.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — no selective favouring of energy-intensive users

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the special compensation regime does not selectively favour energy-intensive users. First, the users did not receive any benefit which they would not have received under normal market conditions because, under those circumstances, EEG operators have to sell their electricity at market prices and there is already no EEG-surcharge. Secondly, the special compensation regime applies within the energy-intensive users, which are affected solely by the threatened loss of international competitiveness due to the EEG-surcharge, to all manufacturing sectors in a non-discriminatory way.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU — in any event, compatibility with the internal market

                           —

                           However, even if the special compensation regime were to constitute aid, it is, in any event, clearly compatible with the internal market in accordance with the State aid rules of Article 107(3)(b) and (c) with regard to the objective, which is in the Community’s interest, of environmental and climate protection whilst guaranteeing a sustainable and stable European economy.


title: Case C-196/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ — Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive element — Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd
   (Case C-196/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ - Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive element - Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark - Likelihood of confusion)
   2012/C 200/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Formula One Licensing BV (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Global Sports Media Ltd (represented by: T. de Haan, avocet)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 (Formula One Licensing v OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of Community and national word and figurative marks ‘F1’, ‘F1 Formula 1’, ‘F1 Racing Simulation’, ‘F1 Pole Position’, and ‘F1 Pit Stop Café’, in respect of goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, against Decision R 7/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 October 2008, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the registration of the figurative mark ‘F1-Live’, for goods and services in Classes 16, 38, and 41, in the context of the applicant’s opposition — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b), and Article 8(5), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09 Formula One Licensing v OHIM — Global Sports Media (F1-LIVE);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case F-27/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/33

         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-27/11)
   2011/C 186/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the defendant refusing to authorise medical benefits requested by the applicant for his son, his wife and himself.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decisions and, as necessary, the decision of the AECE rejecting the complaint;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-388/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Proceedings brought by Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Erroneous information provided by a telecommunications undertaking to one of its subscribers which resulted in additional costs for the latter — Classification as a ‘misleading commercial practice’)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Proceedings brought by Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság
   (Case C-388/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Erroneous information provided by a telecommunications undertaking to one of its subscribers which resulted in additional costs for the latter - Classification as a ‘misleading commercial practice’))
   (2015/C 198/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

      Defendant: UPC Magyarország Kft.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as a ‘misleading commercial practice’, within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer;

               2.

               Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, if a commercial practice meets all of the criteria specified in Article 6(1) of that directive for classification as a misleading practice in relation to the consumer, it is not necessary further to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence, as referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of that directive, in order for it legitimately to be regarded as unfair and, consequently, prohibited in accordance with Article 5(1) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-36/96)

text:
No C 95/ 10            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
24 January 1996, which was received at the Court Registry            Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
on 9 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in criminal             24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik
proceedings against Maria Paolantoni .                               Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes
                                                                           Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                                        Case C-36/96 )
Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                                     ( 96/C 95/ 17 )
C-58/95 ( M.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                     of 24 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 12 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice
                                                                     Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and
                                                                     Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following
Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of               questions :
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-35/96 )                            1 . is a Turkish worker within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
                           ( 96/C 95/16 )                                 of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey Association
                                                                          Council on the development of the Association
                                                                          ('Decision No 1 /80') duly registered as belonging to the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 labour force of a Member State and is he legally
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      employed there if he has been permitted to be employed
9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European                         by an employer in the Member State only temporarily
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa , of its Legal                and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey ?
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                                                                     2 . can a claim under Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has
                                                                         expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey
1 . declare that by adopting and maintaining in force a law              after preparation for the work there and the authority
     which, in granting the relative decision-making power,               dealing with foreigners has permitted him to reside
     requires the Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                 in the country temporarily only in view of that
     Doganali ( CNSD ) to adopt a decision by an association             declaration ?
     of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community in that it fixes a
     compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the Italian
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;                                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                     d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                    30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem,
                                                                     Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      ( C-38/96 ) against Direction Generale des Douanes
                                                                                ( Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 )
By Decision 93/438/EEC ( l ) of 30 June 1993 , the                                            ( 96/C 95/18 )
Commission found that the tariff adopted by the CNSD at
its meeting on 21 March 1988 constitutes an infringement             Two references have been made to the Court ofJustice of the
of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .                                  European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
The Commission also found that the direct basis for the
                                                                     d'Instance ( District Court), Paris VII, of 30 January 1996 ,
                                                                     which were received at the Court Registry on 12 February
CNSD decision of 21 March 1988 , which hinders
                                                                     1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of the companies
competition in that it fixes a compulsory tariff for all             Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
customs agents, is Italian Law No 1612/1960 which                    ( C-38/96 ) against the Direction Generate des Douanes on
provides for the adoption by the CNSD of a decision by an            the following question:
association of undertakings prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 ) of
the Treaty. The Commission has therefore concluded that              do the rules laid down by Law 92-676 of 17 July 1992
Law No 1612/1969 constitutes an infringement of Article 5            concerning dock dues and implementing Decision 89/688 of
of the Treaty in relation to Article 85 .                            the Council of the European Communities of 22 December
                                                                     1 989 ( 1 ) have the effect of replacing a charge having
(') OJ No L 203 , 30 . 6 . 1993 , p . 27.                            equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, as
                                                                     considered in the preliminary ruling of 16 July 1992 in
                                                                     Legros, and of establishing — by contrast with the dock


title: Case C-392/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Andrés Rabal Cañas v Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-392/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
   (2015/C 236/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrés Rabal Cañas

      Defendants: Nexea Gestión Documental SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that introduces the undertaking and not the establishment as the sole reference unit, where the effect of the application of that criterion is to preclude the information and consultation procedure provided for in Articles 2 to 4 of that directive, when the dismissals in question would have been considered ‘collective redundancies’, under the definition in Article 1(1)(a) of that directive, had the establishment been used as the reference unit.

               2.

               Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of establishing whether ‘collective redundancies’, within the meaning of that provision, have been effected, there is no need to take into account individual terminations of contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks, when those terminations take place on the date of expiry of the contract or on the date on which that task was completed.

               3.

               Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of establishing the existence of collective redundancies effected under contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time or for specific tasks, it is not necessary for the cause of such collective redundancies to derive from the same collective contractual framework for the same duration or the same task.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-165/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2009 — Red Bull v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (TORO)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2009 — Red Bull v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (TORO)
   (Case T-165/07) (1)

   2009/C 90/60

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-145/09: Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/51

         Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission
   (Case T-145/09)
   2009/C 141/105
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp, Alpha International (PTV) Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom), Breco (Asia Pacific) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (Eastern Europe) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (South Africa) Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Breco (UK) Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Breco Group, Breco International (St. Helier, Jersey, United Kingdom), Breco Nominees Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Breco Services Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Corybantes Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Echo Delta Holdings (Reading, United Kingdom), Masters International Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Piedmont (UK) Ltd. (Ascot, United Kingdom), Raceview Enterprises (Private) Limited, Scottlee Holdings (PTV) Ltd., Scottlee Resorts Ltd., Timpani Exports Ltd. (Douglas, Isle of Man, United Kingdom), Tremalt Ltd. (represented by: D. Vaughan, QC, P. Moser, Barrister and R. Khan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the Europrean Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe, insofar as it concerns the applicants and each of them;

               —

               further or alternatively, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 insofar as it concerns the first applicant and any entity in Annex III said to be “owned” by the first applicant by deletion of entry of the first applicant and all the entries of those entities from Annex III;

               —

               consequently, a declaration that the Commission’s said decision of 26 January 2009 is inapplicable in respect of the applicants;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1) insofar as the applicants are included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The applicants put forward five pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, the applicants submit that the contested regulation is devoid of any legal basis.
   Second, they argue that the Commission failed to provide compelling reasons for funds freeze against the applicants, in violation of its obligation as resulting from the established case law.
   Third, the applicants claim that the contested regulation violates their right of defence, both the right to be heard and to effective judicial protection as, in the applicants’ opinion, it was adopted without any guarantee being given as to the communication of any inculpatory evidence against them or as to them being heard in relation to such evidence, nor as to their own, exculpatory evidence.
   Fourth, the applicants contend that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of Protocol 1 Article 1 ECHR and violates their fundamental rights to property.
   Fifth, they state that the contested regulation is based on a manifest error of facts insofar as it affects them. They further argue that the Commission failed to establish the alleged reasons to prove that freezing of the applicants’ funds is legally justified, in the light of relevant legislation and to provide precise information and serious and credible evidence as basis to its decision thus failing to meet the requisite burden of proof.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5


title: Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures — Determination of legal basis — Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Secondary legal basis — Consultation of Parliament)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-317/13 and C-679/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Determination of legal basis - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Consultation of Parliament))
   (2015/C 198/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures and Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures;

               2.

               Declares that the effects of Decision 2013/129 and Implementing Decision 2013/496 are to be maintained until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

      OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-718/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/41

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)
   (Case T-718/14)
   (2014/C 431/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hong Kong Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J. Spåre, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark including the word element ‘W E’ — Application for registration No 1 0 7 63  795

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2014 in Case R 2305/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a Community trade mark registration lodged by the applicant;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-545/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — Al Matri v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Inadequate factual basis — Error of fact — Error of law — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — Al Matri v Council
   (Case T-545/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of public funds and associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Inadequate factual basis - Error of fact - Error of law - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 305/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester and B. Kennelly, Barristers, and G. Martin, Solicitor,)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62), implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52), by Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 38) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 of 30 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 29), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 of 30 July 2013 (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 23), by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 2) and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 147/2015 of 30 January 2015 (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 3), in so far as those acts apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case T-129/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Sahlstedt and Others v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Sahlstedt and Others v Commission
   (Case T-129/08) (1)

   2009/C 233/43

      Language of the case: Finnish

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

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-149/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Institute of the Motor Industry v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT - Exemptions - Non-profit-making organisations with aims of a trade-union nature)

text:
C 397/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R.                aim is to defend the collective interests of its members Ð
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November              whether they are workers, employers, independent
1998, in which it:                                                 professionals or traders carrying on a particular economic
                                                                   activity Ð and to represent them vis-aÁ-vis the appropriate
                                                                   third parties, including the public authorities.
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   Action brought on 14 October 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-367/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/27)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                    of 12 November 1998                            before the Court of Justice on 14 October 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
in Case C-149/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   by António Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Institute of the Motor
                                                                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Industry v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
                                                                   office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal
(VAT Ð Exemptions Ð Non-profit-making organisations                Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
             with aims of a trade-union nature)
                        (98/C 397/26)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
               (Language of the case: English)                     Ð declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force Law
                                                                       No 11/90 of 5 April 1990, and in particular
                                                                       Article 13(3) thereof, the decree-laws privatising
                                                                       undertakings subsequently enacted in implementation
In Case C-149/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             thereof, and Decree-Law No 380/93 of 15 November
of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,                     1993 and Decree-Law No 65/94 of 28 February 1994,
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
pending before that court between Institute of the Motor               obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular
Industry and Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ð on                  Articles 52, 56, 58, 73 et seq. (which superseded
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council           Article 67 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 221,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and Articles 221 and 231 of the Act of Accession of
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                the Portuguese Republic; (1)
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1)
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F.              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                   Ð By providing that foreign capital holdings in privatised
For the purposes of Article 13A(1)(l) of the Sixth Council             undertakings may not exceed a specified percentage,
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             and including in that category holdings by Community
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                investors, the Portuguese legislation discriminates
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                  between national citizens and entities and those of
uniform basis of assessment, an organisation with aims of              other Member States, thereby infringing Articles 52 et
a trade-union nature means an organisation whose main                  seq. and 73 et seq. of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-521/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/16

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2006 by Athinaiki Techniki AE against the order delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission

   (Case C-521/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Athinaiki Techniki AE (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul the contested order;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant relies on a single plea in support of its appeal, based on the error allegedly committed by Court of First Instance in its legal characterisation of the letter deciding to take no further action on its complaint. First, the decision taken by the Commission not to take any further action clearly assumes a final character in the light of the file; secondly, it is unambiguously apparent from the context in which the Commission ruled that it had indeed implicitly taken a reasoned decision on the classification of the State aid which was the subject of the complaint. Consequently, the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding that the contested letter could not be subject of an action and in dismissing the action as inadmissible.


title: Case T-865/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/57

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission
   (Case T-865/16)
   (2017/C 030/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Roca Sagarra, J. del Saz Cordero, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Selles Marco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul European Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

               —

               In the alternative, annul Articles 4 and 5 of that decision.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as all the reasoning in the contested decision is based on a national rule which restricts freedom of establishment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission (i) does not analyse the applicable deductions by reference to the rate for each [type of organisation]; (ii) does not act impartially, looking for evidence both for and against, and therefore, (iii) concludes incorrectly that there was an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes (i) the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by ordering the recovery of the alleged aid, taking into account that, in the light of the action of the Spanish administration and the duration of the proceedings, FC Barcelona could entertain a legitimate expectation as to the legality of the tax system to which it was subject, and (ii) the fundamental requirement of legal certainty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission does not take into account that the aid was justified by the internal logic of the tax system.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 21 and 23 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9), in so far as it orders the recovery of an existing aid and does not comply with the procedure for that type of aid.


title: Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-181/96)

text:
No C 26/8             I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 1 . 97
— Breach of the principle of giving the interested parties              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     an opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it
     was adopted without having given the applicant the
     opportunity to comment on its content,                             — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1186 of 14 August
                                                                              1996 reducing the amount of Decision C(8 9 ) 0570 of
                                                                              22 March 1989 concerning the granting of assistance
— Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate                     from the European Social Fund towards the financing
     expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for                        in Portugal ( Mediocurso ), within the Community
     payment of the balance relating to the file in question                  Support Framework, of Objective 1 ,
     was submitted timeously, the Commission did not
     adopt within a reasonable period a decision thereon,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the "
— Breach of essential procedural requirements in that                         proceedings .
     Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83
     of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of
     Decision 83/51 6/EEC on the tasks of the European                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Social Fund 0 ) was infringed inasmuch as the
     Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful
     comment ,
                                                                        and should be annulled on the following grounds :
— Breach of the principles of legal certainty and the
     protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the              — Breach of the principle of giving the interested parties
     contested act reverses, to the applicant's disadvantage,                  an opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it
     the earlier act certifying the accuracy of the facts and                  was adopted without having given the applicant the
     the information submitted by the applicant in its                         opportunity to comment on its content,
     payment claims,
                                                                        — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
— Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of                           expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for
      reasons, of the principle of observance of acquired                      payment of the balance relating to the file in question
      rights, of the principle of the protection of legitimate                 was submitted timeously, the Commission did not
      expectations, of the principle of proportionality, of the                adopt within a reasonable period a decision thereon,
      rules applicable to the management of the European
      Social Fund and of the act approving the contribution
      in issue, with regard to the legal and factual grounds             — Breach of essential procedural requirements in that
      relied on in support of the reduction of the assistance                  Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83
      which is the subject-matter of the contested act.                        of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of
                                                                               Decision 83/51 6/EEC on the tasks of the European
 (') OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p. 1 .                                     Social Fund f 1 ) was infringed inasmuch as the
                                                                               Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                               comment,
                                                                         — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the
                                                                                protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the
 Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso,                              contested act reverses, to the applicant's disadvantage,
 Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the                     the earlier act certifying the accuracy of the facts and
           Commission of the European Communities                               accounts of the documents submitted by the applicant
                          ( Case T-181 /96 )                                    in its payment claims,
                             ( 97/C 26/15 )
                                                                         — Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons, of the principle of observance of acquired
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                              rights, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                                expectations, of the principle of proportionality, of the
  An action against the Commission of the European                              rules applicable to the management of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of First                              Social Fund and of the act approving the assistance in
  Instance of the European Communities on 14 November                            issue, with regard to the legal and factual grounds
  1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino                                  relied on in support of the reduction of the assistance
  Particular Limitada, whose registered office is at Rua dos                     which is the subject-matter of the contested act.
  Ferreiros a Estrela, n° 9 , 2° Dto, Lisbon, represented by
  Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the                  f 1 ) OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
  Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand'-Rue, L-1661 ,
  Luxembourg.


title: Case C-538/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Assitur Srl v Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano (Directive 92/50/EEC — First paragraph of Article 29 — Public service contracts — National legislation not allowing companies linked by a relationship of control or significant influence to participate, as competing tenderers, in the same procedure for the award of a public contract)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Assitur Srl v Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano
   (Case C-538/07) (1)

   (Directive 92/50/EEC - First paragraph of Article 29 - Public service contracts - National legislation not allowing companies linked by a relationship of control or significant influence to participate, as competing tenderers, in the same procedure for the award of a public contract)
   2009/C 153/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Assitur Srl

      Defendant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano

      In the presence of: SDA Express Courier SpA, Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 29 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — National legislation precluding undertakings which are linked or controlled from participating individually in public procurement procedures for the supply of services

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 29 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from laying down, in addition to the grounds for exclusion contained in that provision, other grounds for exclusion intended to guarantee respect for the principles of equality of treatment and transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

               2.

               Community law precludes a national provision which, while pursuing legitimate objectives of equality of treatment of tenderers and transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, lays down an absolute prohibition on simultaneous and competing participation in the same tendering procedure by undertakings linked by a relationship of control, without allowing them an opportunity to demonstrate that that relationship did not influence their conduct in the course of that tendering procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-353/10: Action brought on 13 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/33

         Action brought on 13 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-353/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel, (1) or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2006/117 into domestic law expired on 25 December 2008.

      (1)  OJ No L 337 of 5.12.2006, p. 21.