title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2004 in Case T- 342/99 DEP: Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs — Solicitors' and barristers' fees — Economists' fees — VAT)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2004
   in Case T- 342/99 DEP: Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Taxation of costs - Solicitors' and barristers' fees - Economists' fees - VAT)
   (2004/C 251/26)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-342/99 DEP: Airtours plc, represented by M. Nicholson, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the Commission by Airtours plc following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 28 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Commission to Airtours is fixed at GBP 489 615.03 (four hundred and eighty-nine thousand, six hundred and fifteen pounds and three pence).

      (1)  OJ C 79, 18.3.2000.


               7.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/25

         Action brought on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-8/10)
   2010/C 271/05
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, all the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;

               2.

               The Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply with a reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the failure to adopt, or to notify the Authority of all the measures necessary to fully implement the EEA Act corresponding to European Union Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications as amended.

               —

               The outstanding Icelandic measures concern the adoption of national regulations to provide for sector specific rules on the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in other EEA States.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from Iceland indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly.

               —

               The Icelandic government has not disputed the delay in fully implementing the Act.


title: Case F-38/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Martin v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/70

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Martin v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-38/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/130)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Breige Martin (Dublin, Ireland) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Martin a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 January 1998 in Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping - Furfuraldehyde - Factors justifying the opening of an investigation - Principle of proportionality - Injury - Rejection of an undertaking - Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88)

text:
C 94/20               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 29 January 1998                                                 of 29 January 1998
                                                                   in Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte v. Commission of the
in Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &
                                                                                European Communities (1)
 Export Corporation v. Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Partial permanent invalidity Ð Accident Ð
(Anti-dumping Ð Furfuraldehyde Ð Factors justifying the                           Link between cause and effect)
opening of an investigation Ð Principle of proportionality
Ð Injury Ð Rejection of an undertaking Ð Regulation                                        (98/C 94/52)
                     (EEC) No 2423/88)
                         (98/C 94/51)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte, an official of the
               (Language of the case: English)                     Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Halle (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
                                                                   Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &              (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the
Export Corporation established in Beijing, represented by          decision of the Commission of 16 June 1995 refusing to
Jean-FrancËois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        accept, in accordance with the rules on insurance against
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and            the risk of accident, financial responsibility for the
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union             consequences of an infarction suffered by the applicant
(Agents: initially Yves Cretien and Antonio Tanca,                 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the
subsequently Mr Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.               decision of 25 January 1996 expressly rejecting the
Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European                 applicant's complaint Ð the Court of First Instance
Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural                    (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
EspanÄol SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain),                  President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; A.
represented by JoseÂ Rivas de AndreÂs, of the Madrid Bar,          Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde
Ð for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 95/
95 of 16 January 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping           1. dismisses the application;
duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the
People's Republic of China (OJ L 15, 21.1.1995, p. 11) Ð
the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                   2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the
Chamber, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Registrar, gave a judgment on             (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
29 January 1998 in which it:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 22 January 1998
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                   in Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
    the costs of the Council and of the intervener Furfural
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    EspanÄol;
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision reassigning an official Ð Article 7
                                                                   of the Staff Regulations Ð Annex X to the Staff
                                                                                Regulations)
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                            (98/C 94/53)
(1) OJ C 159, 24.6.1995.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case T-757/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Société générale v ECB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/44

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Société générale v ECB
   (Case T-757/16)
   (2017/C 006/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank’s Decision No ECB/SSM/2016-02RNE8IBXP4ROTD8PU41/72 of 24 August 2016;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs in any event.

      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 lack of competence vitiates the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 24 August 2016 rejecting the request of the applicant for exposure on the French Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, resulting from centralised funds in the context of regulated savings, to be excluded from the leverage ratio calculation (‘the contested decision’), in so far as, having confirmed that all of the conditions laid down in the applicable EU legislation had been met, the ECB was not competent to refuse to grant the exclusion requested.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging several errors of law on the part of the ECB. The applicant claims that, even if the ECB had been competent to adopt the contested decision, that decision would not be valid as it is vitiated by several errors of law in relation to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2013’) and the intentions of the EU legislature by reason of the fact that the ECB misinterpreted the legislation in question and thus adopted a decision which:

                           —

                           is contrary to the objectives and purpose of the rules on leverage ratio since it disregards not only the objective of leverage-ratio legislation itself but also the legislature’s intention as expressed in Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013;

                           —

                           alters the basic provision by taking into consideration two additional conditions that are not included in the provision at issue;

                           —

                           renders Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 ineffective.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment, in particular with regard to the nature of the centralised regulated saving funds, with regard to the implications associated with inclusion of the funds in the bank’s balance sheet and with regard to the adjustment mechanism for centralised funds.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of several general principles of EU law, namely the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration in so far as the ECB breached its duty to exercise due diligence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision inasmuch as, although the ECB was subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons, the contested decision was inadequately and ambiguously reasoned.


title: Case C-599/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2012 — JETAIR NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD FINANCIËN

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2012 — JETAIR NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD FINANCIËN
   (Case C-599/12)
   2013/C 86/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: JETAIR NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you

      Defendant: FOD FINANCIËN

      Questions referred

               1.

               Was Belgium entitled to amend its legislation by taxing an exempt service — in this case, journeys outside the EU — at a point in time (1 December 1977) just before the introduction of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) (1 January 1978) and thus circumvent the standstill provision in Article 28(3) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC), (2) which provides that the journeys referred to may continue to be taxed only if they were already taxed prior to the adoption of the Sixth Directive?

               2.

               Should Belgium have refrained from taxing journeys outside the EU as of 13 June 1977 (the date of publication of the Sixth Directive)?

               3.

               Does Belgium infringe Article 309 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC by not treating travel agents, as regards their services outside the Community, as intermediaries and continuing nevertheless to tax those services?

               4.

               Do Articles 309, 153 and 370 of, and Annex X to, Council Directive 2006/112/EC infringe the general principles of Community law, the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality and the provisions concerning the free movement of persons, goods and services, inter alia, Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty, by giving Member States the right to choose whether or not to tax services relating to journeys outside the Community?

               5.

               Is it contrary to the principles of Community law, in particular the principles of equality and proportionality and the principle of neutrality with regard to VAT, for the Belgian State, by Royal Decree of 28 November 1999, to have made only travel agents, but not intermediaries, taxable with regard to journeys outside the EU?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


C 7/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                    10.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/02 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-326/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/49)                                                      (2004/C 7/50)
By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            By order of 30 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-163/02: Commission of the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                register of Case C-326/02: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-37/14: Action brought on 24 January 2014 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/18

         Action brought on 24 January 2014 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-37/14)
   2014/C 102/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to recover from the relevant beneficiaries all State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (1) and by failing to inform the Commission, within the time-limit set, of any measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decision 2009/402/EC;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Recovery of all State aid declared unlawful had not taken place by the date on which the time-limit for such recovery, as laid down by Decision 2009/402/EC, expired.
   On the date on which the present action was brought, the French Republic had still not adopted the measures necessary to recover that aid from the undertakings to which it had been granted, nor had it disclosed to the Commission all the information requested by that institution.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 March 2002 in Case T-28/99: Sigma Tecnologie di rivestimento Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Proof of participation in a global agreement — Fine)

text:
15.6.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 144/37
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3.    Reduces the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3(i) of the
                                                                                decision to EUR 300 000;
                                                                            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                             20 March 2002
                                                                            5.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one third
                                                                                of the costs incurred by the Commission;
in Case T-28/99: Sigma Tecnologie di rivestimento Srl v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            6.    Orders the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs.
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Proof of
          participation in a global agreement — Fine)
                            (2002/C 144/78)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                20 March 2002
In Case T-28/99, Sigma Tecnologie di rivestimento Srl, estab-               in Case T-31/99: ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v Com-
lished in Lonato (Italy), represented by A. Pappalardo, M. Pap-                        mission of the European Communities (1)
palardo and M. Merola, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Pignataro and E. Gippini Fournier): Application for             (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
primarily, annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Principle
21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of                of sound administration — Fine — Guidelines on the method
the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe                             of setting fines — Legitimate expectations)
Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of
the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                                         (2002/C 144/79)
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 20 March 2002, in which it:                                                              (Language of the case: English)
1.    Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of
      21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of          In Case T-31/99, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, established
      the EC Treaty (Case No IV/3.5/691/E.4: — Pre-Insulated                in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by A. Weitbrecht and
      Pipe Cartel) in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed       S. Völcker, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      Article 85(1) of the Treaty not only by participating in an           v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver
      infringement of that provision in the Italian market but also by      and E. Gippini Fournier): Application for, primarily, annulment
      participating in a cartel covering the whole of the common            of Article 3 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 Octo-
      market;                                                               ber 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)
                                                                            (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
                                                                            imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court of
2.    Annuls Article 3(i) of the decision in so far as it imposes on        First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
      the applicant a fine calculated on the basis of its participation     President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
      in the cartel covering the whole of the common market and in          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      the light of its intentional continuation of the infringement;        20 March 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-14/02: Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Agrofair Benelux BV, Volta River Estates Limited, SH Pratt & Co (Bananas) Ltd and M W Mack Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/48              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG                   Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 43, Section 2
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                  of Regulation 40/94 (1) since there
                             Market                                                                   was no satisfactory proof of the
                                                                                genuine use of the opposing
                                                                                trademark and violation of
                          (Case T-8/02)                                                               Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regu-
                                                                                lation 40/94 since there is no
                                                                                danger of confusion.
                        (2002/C 109/95)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner Bolte &
Partner, Munich (Germany).
                                                                        Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Agrofair Benelux
                                                                        BV, Volta River Estates Limited, SH Pratt & Co (Bananas)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Ltd and M W Mack Limited against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      29 October 2001 in case R 418/2001-1 relating to                                            (Case T-14/02)
      Opposition Proceedings no. B 97230 and Community
      trade mark application no. 50229 ‘Colette Zapf Creation
      Kombi Collection’                                                                          (2002/C 109/96)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Zapf Creation AG                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
munity trade mark:                                                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 30 January 2002 by Agrofair
                                                                        Benelux BV, Volta River Estates Limited, SH Pratt & Co
The Community trade           The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf         (Bananas) Ltd and M W Mack Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
mark concerned:               Creation Kombi Collection’ for            ippe Vlaemminck and Mr Pieter De Wael of Vlaemminck &
                              certain goods in class 28                 Partners, Ghent (Belgium).
Proprietor of the right to    Jesmar S.A.
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                            —    annul Article 1, third indent and Article 2(4) of Com-
                                                                             mission Regulation (EC) No 2294/2001 of 26 November
Trade mark or sign            The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’                2001 fixing certain indicative quantities and individual
asserted by way of oppo-      for certain goods in class 28                  ceilings for the issue of licences for imports of bananas
sition in the opposition                                                     into the Community for the first quarter of 2002 under
proceedings:                                                                 the tariff quotas to the extent that the applicants can only
                                                                             import a maximum of 8 % of their annual allocation
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by                 during the first quarter of 2002;
sition Division:              Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        —    order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant
Decision of the Board of      Admission of the appeal lodged                 companies in the present proceedings including the costs
Appeal:                       by Jesmar S.A.                                 of the interim proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 109/49
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 31 January 2002 by BASF AG against
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-15/02)
The applicants import organic, fair-trade and conventionally
grown bananas into the European Union. They are all non-
traditional importers of bananas who have requested and                                        (2002/C 109/97)
received a C quota for 2002. Because of Commission Regu-
lation 2294/2001, the applicants are allowed to import during
the first quarter of 2002 only 8 % of their quota, while the                              (Language of the case: English)
traditional C operators can import 26 % of their quota, and
the traditional and non-traditional A and B operators 27 %.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
According to the applicants, the Commission has misused its            European Communities on 31 January 2002 by BASF AG,
powers in that the Commission, by the contested Regulation,            represented by Mr Nicholas Levy, Dr John Temple Lang,
favours the traditional C operators. Following the agreement           Mr Robert O’Donoghue and Dr Christoph Feddersen of Cleary,
reached between the European Union and the United States,              Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium).
and the agreement with Ecuador to resolve the respective
disputes over bananas, the banana regime in the European
Union will be reformed in two stages. The second stage
includes a reduction of the C quota by 100 000 tonnes. As a            The applicant claims that the Court should:
consequence of the contested Regulation, the burden of the
decrease of the C quota will be imposed, according to
the applicant, solely on the non-traditional importers. The            —     annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on BASF
applicant points out that if this limitation of 8 % is taken                 pursuant to Article 3(b) of the Decision;
through the whole year, this leads to a reduction of the import
under the C quota of approximately 100 000 tonnes.
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay BASF’s legal and other costs
                                                                             and expenses in relation to this matter.
Furthermore, the contested Regulation violates the principles
of proportionality and non-discrimination. The non-tra-
ditional C operators are the only operators who can import
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
only 8 % of their quota in the first quarter. This limitation
discriminates, according to the applicant, between the tra-
ditional and non-traditional C operators in particular. The
contested measure is also disproportionate, since the Com-             The present application concerns a Decision of the European
mission places the burden of the decrease of the C quota solely        Commission rendered on 21 November 2001, in case
on the non-traditional C operators. Instead the Commission             No. COMP/E-1/37.512-Vitamins. This Decision finds that a
could have spread this burden between the traditional and              number of companies infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53
non-traditiona C operators. According to the applicant, it is          EEA by participating in a cartel that affected the global markets
also unlikely that the Commission will divide the remaining            for vitamins A, E, B2, B5, C, D3 and Beta-carotene and
92 % of the quota over the remainder of the year.                      carotinoids. The fines imposed on the companies involved
                                                                       were the highest ever in a competition law case.
Finally, the applicants claim that there has been a violation of
                                                                       In support of its claims, the applicant relies on and submits
the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
                                                                       the following grounds and main arguments:
According to the applicants, the current 8 % allocation is a
complete departure from the Commission’s earlier practices
where allocations of 26 to 28 % were given to the non-                 —     Whilst the statements of objections stated that there was
traditional C operators for the first quarter of the year. The               a single cartel, comprising collusive arrangements with
applicants also claim that they could legitimately rely on the               regard to various vitamins, the contested Decision, in
fact that the decrease of the C quota would be divided between               contrast, stated for the first time that the arrangements
the different traditional and non-traditional operators in a                 with regard to each vitamin constituted ‘distinct’ infringe-
proportionate manner.                                                        ments of Community competition law. The Commission
                                                                             has thus breached the principle according to which a
                                                                             Decision cannot rely on legal or factual objections
                                                                             that are materially different from those contained in a
                                                                             statement of objections.


title: Case C-671/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence v Association des producteurs vendeurs d’endives (APVE), Association Comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel), Société Fraileg, Société Prim’Santerre, Union des endiviers, Société Soleil du Nord, Comité économique fruits et légumes du Nord de la France (Celfnord), Association des producteurs d’endives de France (APEF), Section nationale de l’endive (SNE), Fédération du commerce de l’endive (FCE), Société France endives, Société Cambrésis Artois-Picardie endives (CAP’Endives), Société Marché de Phalempin, Société Primacoop, Société Coopérative agricole du marais audomarois (Sipema), Société Valois-Fruits, Société Groupe Perle du Nord, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence v Association des producteurs vendeurs d’endives (APVE), Association Comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel), Société Fraileg, Société Prim’Santerre, Union des endiviers, Société Soleil du Nord, Comité économique fruits et légumes du Nord de la France (Celfnord), Association des producteurs d’endives de France (APEF), Section nationale de l’endive (SNE), Fédération du commerce de l’endive (FCE), Société France endives, Société Cambrésis Artois-Picardie endives (CAP’Endives), Société Marché de Phalempin, Société Primacoop, Société Coopérative agricole du marais audomarois (Sipema), Société Valois-Fruits, Société Groupe Perle du Nord, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique
   (Case C-671/15)
   (2016/C 090/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence

      Defendants: Association des producteurs vendeurs d’endives (APVE), Association Comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel), Société Fraileg, Société Prim’Santerre, Union des endiviers, Société Soleil du Nord, Comité économique fruits et légumes du Nord de la France (Celfnord), Association des producteurs d’endives de France (APEF), Section nationale de l’endive (SNE), Fédération du commerce de l’endive (FCE), Société France endives, Société Cambrésis Artois-Picardie endives (CAP’Endives), Société Marché de Phalempin, Société Primacoop, Société Coopérative agricole du marais audomarois (Sipema), Société Valois-Fruits, Société Groupe Perle du Nord, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can agreements, decisions or practices of producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and professional organisations which could be classified as anticompetitive under Article 101 TFEU escape the prohibition laid down in that article on the sole ground that they could be linked to the responsibilities assigned to those organisations under the common organisation of the market, even if they are not covered by any of the general derogations provided for in turn by Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 26 of 4 April 1962 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006, (2) and by Article 176 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007? (3)

               2.

               If so, must Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/1996, (4) Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 (5) and the first paragraph of Article 122 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, which include, among the objectives assigned to producer organisations and their associations, those of stabilising producer prices and adjusting production to demand, particularly in terms of quantity, be interpreted as meaning that practices whereby those organisations or their associations collectively fix minimum prices, concert on the quantities placed on the market or exchange strategic information escape the prohibition of anticompetitive agreements, decisions and practices in so far as they are aimed at achieving those objectives?

      (1)  Council: Regulation (EEC) No 26 of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006 applying certain rules of competition to the production of, and trade in, agricultural products (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 7).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1).


title: Case T-651/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Time v OHIM (InStyle)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/10

         Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Time v OHIM (InStyle)
   (Case T-651/13)
   2014/C 61/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Time Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2013 given in Case R 827/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceeding incurred before the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 11 264 223

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-547/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-547/08)
   (2009/C 32/40)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 (1) laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 214, p. 29.


title: Case T-531/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France v Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/34

         Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France v Commission
   (Case T-531/15)
   (2015/C 406/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France (Auneau, France) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Titze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that the Applicant infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, for the period indicated in Article 1(5)d) of the Commission’s Decision, in a single and continuous infringement consisting of several separate infringements in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of France; and

               —

               annul Article 2(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 7 56  000 on the Applicant; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously applied the principle of personal responsibility in holding Coveris liable for alleged participation in a single and continuous infringement in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector in France. The exceptional circumstances of the case warranted the application of a holistic view in relation to the two parts of the ONO Packaging management buy-out or, alternatively, the application of the principle of economic continuity in relation to the asset deal part of the transaction. On that basis, Coveris could not be held liable for the alleged infringement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by distinguishing between the asset deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and the share deal portion of the ONO Packaging management buy-out and consequently splitting liability between legal entities (i.e. Coveris and ONO Packaging Portugal SA) belonging to separate undertakings when attributing liability for alleged infringements committed by one and the same undertaking which remained intact following the management buy-out.


title: Case T-194/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — SNIA v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/43

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — SNIA v Commission
   (Case T-194/06)
   (2006/C 212/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): SNIA S.p.A. (represented by: Alberto Santa Maria and Claudi Biscaretti di Rufia, lawyers,)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in so far as it imposes on SNIA S.p.A., jointly and severally with Caffaro S.r.l., a fine of EUR 1 078 000.

               —

               The Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in this case is the same as in Case T-185/06 L'air Liquide v Commission.
   In that decision, the Commission maintains that, at the time of the facts, Industrie Chimiche Caffaro S.p.A. (ICC) was managerially dependent not only on Caffaro S.p.A., a company quoted on the Italian stock exchange and controlling ICC as to 100 %, but also on the applicant, a majority shareholder of Caffaro S.p.A. of between 53 % and 59 %. Essentially on the basis of that indirect link, the applicant is considered jointly and severally liable for the infringement of which the Commission accuses Caffaro S.r.l.
   In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:

               —

               that the Commission has not established a relationship of dependency between SNIA and ICC during the period in question. Nor has it demonstrated the existence, during the same period, of such a relationship between Caffaro S.p.A. and ICC.

               —

               that, as regards the relevance of the merger between Caffaro S.p.A. and SNIA for the purposes of identifying a decisive influence of SNIA, the Commission ignored the fact that the merger by incorporation of Caffaro S.p.A. into SNIA S.p.A. (like the change of the company name of ICC to Caffaro S.p.A., now Caffaro S.r.l.) occurred in 2000, that is to say a year after the exit from the market in bleaching agents, and that, as already stated, the Commission has not in any way demonstrated decisive influence by Caffaro S.p.A. over ICC.

               —

               that the only party responsible for the presumed infringement is ICC (now Caffaro S.r.l.), which, moreover, has not ceased to exist as a legal entity but has merely changed its name. On the other hand, even if one were to hold that Caffaro S.p.A. was responsible for the presumed infringement, the legal sucessor of the latter is Caffaro S.r.l. and not SNIA.


title: Case T-347/09: Action brought on 31 August 2009 — Germany v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/75

         Action brought on 31 August 2009 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-347/09)
   2009/C 267/135
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2009) D/3985 on State aid No NN 8/2009 of 2 July 2009 null and void, to the extent that the measures notified are categorised as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision K(2009) 5080, definitive since 2 July 2009, concerning aid rules which consist of, first, the free transfer of federally-owned national nature reserves and, second, support for large conservation projects (State aid NN 8/21009 — Germany — Conservation areas). In that decision, the Commission takes the view that the aid rules notified are compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC. The applicant challenges the contested decision, to the extent that the measures notified are categorised as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   As the basis of its action, the applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly applied Article 87(1) EC in a number of respects. In that regard, it is submitted, inter alia, that the defendant wrongly categorises conservation organisations as undertakings and wrongly failed to carry out the necessary overall assessment of the measures referred to. Furthermore, the conservation organisations have obtained no material advantage for State aid purposes from the measures referred to. The applicant further complains of an incorrect application of the fourth criterion laid down by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans und Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747.
   In the alternative, a breach of the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC is claimed.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on Alois Pfennigmann (Case C-193/98)

text:
C 234/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.7.98
     (mentioned in category 6 of Annex IA) contracts for               Does the amount of the charge payable under Article 8(1)
     financial services in connection with the issue, sale,             of the Agreement depend solely on the number of axles
     purchase or transfer of securities or other financial              fitted to the motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
     instruments'.                                                      combination in question, regardless of the distance
                                                                        between them and irrespective of whether an axle is used
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                        or raised during the journey, or are tandem axles/raisable
(2) Translator's note: it would appear, from the words quoted,          axles to be left out of account in calculating the charge?
    that the provision referred to is actually Article 1(b)(vii), not
    Article 2(a)(viii).                                                 (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement
                                                                            of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                            certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                            [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in
proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on
                        Alois Pfennigmann                               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                         (Case C-193/98)                                Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 April 1998 in the
                                                                        case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft
                          (98/C 234/30)
                                                                                öffentlicher Dienst v Republic of Austria
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-195/98)
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                            (98/C 234/32)
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 8 May 1998,
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1998, for a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an                     European Communities by an order of the Oberster
administrative fine imposed on Alois Pfennigmann, on the                Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) of 30 April 1998,
following question (1):                                                 which was received at the Court Registry on 20 May
                                                                        1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Is the answer to the question whether a motor vehicle or
                                                                        Österreichischer        Gewerkschaftsbund,          Gewerkschaft
articulated vehicle combination within the meaning of                   öffentlicher Dienst v Republic of Austria on the following
Article 2(1) of the Agreement in conjunction with the
                                                                        questions:
fourth indent of Article 2 of Council Directive 93/89/
EEC (2) is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by            1. May a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the
road conditional on the time at which, and the manner in                     European Communities under Article 177 of the EC
which, it is used, or does the answer to that question                       Treaty be sought in proceedings in which the Oberster
depend Ð irrespective of the purpose for which such a                        Gerichtshof has to decide, as a court of first and final
vehicle or combination is used in an individual case Ð on                    instance, on the basis of a factual situation
whether the general purpose for which the use of that                        independent of particular named persons, alleged by
vehicle or combination is intended is the carriage of goods                  one party and presumed to be true, on an application
by road?                                                                     by that party for a declaration that rights or legal
                                                                             relationships in the field of employment law, which
(1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Agreement           according to the submissions of that party, which are
    of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                             presumed to be true, are of importance for at least
    certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
    [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).                                    three employers or employees, do or do not exist?
(2) OJ L 279 of 12.11.1993, p. 32.
                                                                             If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                        2. Does Article 48 of the EC Treaty or any other
                                                                             provision of Community law, in particular Article 7 of
                                                                             Council Regulation No 1612/68 (1), preclude the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                      material date of advancement for classification in the
gericht Köln, by order of that court of 8 May 1998 in                        relevant pay scheme of contractual teachers and
proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on                     contractual teaching assistants employed by the
                         Eckard Pörschke                                     respondent from being determined differently, in that
                                                                             the periods completed by such persons in employment,
                         (Case C-194/98)
                                                                             to at least one half of the extent prescribed for full-
                          (98/C 234/31)                                      time employees, in the service of an Austrian local
                                                                             authority or in a teaching post at an Austrian public
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       school, university, college or academy of the visual
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       arts or at an Austrian publicly recognised private
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 8 May 1998,                         school are treated as preceding in full the date on
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1998, for a                         which those persons were engaged, whereas periods
preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an                          completed at comparable institutions of Member
administrative fine imposed on Eckard Pörschke, on the                       States are taken into account only with the consent of
following question (1):                                                      the Federal Minister for Financial Affairs, in full if


title: Case F-141/15: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/66

      Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-141/15)
      (2016/C 211/81)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to reimburse the applicant the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration under Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant those sums withheld together with compound interest at the rate defined in Article 12 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-610/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/33

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission
   (Case T-610/11)
   2012/C 32/68
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporate tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the deduction of losses is not an aid granted through State resources
               With regard to this plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) infringes the principle of net profit or loss and the ability-to-pay principle and that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty merely prevents an unconstitutional intervention in the assets of taxable persons in cases covered by that provision. For that reason the applicant takes the view that the Community law definition of State aid is not fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity in the absence of an exception to the relevant reference system
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the relevant reference system is the general rules on the deduction of losses for corporations (Paragraph 10d of the German Law on Income Tax in conjunction with Paragraph 8(1) of the KStG and Paragraph 10a of the German Law on Trade Tax) and that Paragraph 8c of the KStG is merely an exception to that relevant reference system, which is in turn limited inter alia by the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity as there is no differentiation between economic operators who are in a comparable factual and legal position as regards the objective pursued
               The applicant submits in this connection inter alia that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty benefits all taxable undertakings and does not favour either particular areas of business and sectors or undertakings of a particular size.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity due to justification on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty is based on tax system specific reasons which comply with principles of constitutional law, such as taxation according to ability to pay, the prevention of excessive taxation and respect for the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Manifest errors of assessment on the basis of insufficient consideration of the position under German tax law
               The applicant submits in that regard, that the Commission failed to have regard to the provisions of German tax law on deduction of losses.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that there is a legitimate expectation under EU law
               The applicant submits in this connection that the tax privileges in question upon acquisitions of interests together with deductions of losses were raised by the Commission for the first time in a formal investigation procedure and that this is an extraordinary situation as the question whether a measure may constitute State aid could only arise on the basis of a legal simplification of a provision (Paragraph 8(4) of the KStG) which is undisputedly in conformity with the provisions on State aid. The relevance to State aid of that simplification of the law was not discernible to either the German legislature or undertakings which had been competently advised.


title: Case C-424/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Sonja Hosman-Chevalier (Appeal — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of work done for another State )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Sonja Hosman-Chevalier
   (Case C-424/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2007/C 183/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Hosman-Chevalier (represented by: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, A. Sayagués Torres and D. Dominguez Pérez, abogados)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-72/04 Hosman-Chevalier v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's decisions refusing to grant payment of the expatriation allowance and the installation allowance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case C-201/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2007 — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Clemente Antonio

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2007 — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Clemente Antonio
   (Case C-201/07)
   (2007/C 129/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

      Defendant: Antonio Clemente
   Question referred
   The questions are the same as those in Case C-200/07.


title: Case C-422/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
   (Case C-422/09)
   2010/C 24/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Question referred

   For the purposes of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the ‘professional experience’ to be taken into account by the competent national authority, in order to determine whether the knowledge acquired by the person concerned by reason of such experience is such that it fully or partly covers the substantial differences between the matters covered by the education and training received by the person concerned in the Member State of origin and those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State, include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:

               (a)

               it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin,

               (b)

               it was acquired in the context of professional activities in the host Member State which, although not identical to the regulated profession the right to pursue which in the host Member State is the subject of the application filed by the person concerned in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (and which cannot, moreover, be lawfully pursued in the host Member State until such time as the said application has been accepted) are, in the essential view of the national authority responsible for ruling on the application, professional activities which appear to correlate with the above regulated profession, and

               (c)

               it is found, during the material appraisal by the aforementioned national authority, owing to the above correlation, to be such that it covers at least some of the substantial differences between the matters covered by the education and training received by the person concerned in the Member State of origin and the matters covered by the corresponding diploma in the host Member State?


title: Case T-35/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Leche Celta, S.L. v OHIM

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/43

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Leche Celta, S.L. v OHIM
   (Case T-35/07)
   (2007/C 82/93)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Leche Celta, S.L. (Puentedeume, La Coruna, Spain) (represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and A. Yanez Manglano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Celia, SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision of the 1st Board of Appeal of OHIM issued on 5 December 2006 in case R-294/2006-4

               —

               Consequently, the annulment of that part of the decision of 21 December 2005 in proceedings B657132 which rejects the objection lodged on behalf of the applicant, and allows the application for the contested mark within class 29 for milk and milk products, edible oils and fats

               —

               Granting of the claim of the applicant, and an order that Opposition Division reject the registration of the relevant mark in these specific products

               —

               If OHIM defends the action, an order for costs against it in the present proceedings; and dismissal of its claims

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Celia, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Celia ’for products and services within classes 16, 29 and 38 (application No. 2.977.221)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘CELTA ’for products within class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the objection

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that there is a likelihood of association and a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-551/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/24

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-551/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 200/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case F-78/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014  — ZZ and Others v EEAS

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/31

         Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
   (Case F-78/14)
   2014/C 388/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: Dario de Abreu Caldas, Micael de Abreu Caldas and Jean-Noël Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants to the next grade in the 2013 promotion procedure of the European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 9 and 14 October 2013 establishing the list of officials promoted under the 2013 promotion procedure,

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 15 April 1998 in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Bauprojektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency proceedings concerning that company (Case C-167/98)

text:
C 209/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel (Criminal Court),              Are Council Directives 92/83 (1) and 92/84 (2) on the
Arlon, of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on           harmonisation of excise duties invalid from the point of
29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              view of the EC Treaty and in particular the second
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) against AndreÂ       paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty, in that they
Mazzoleni Ð parties claiming damages: Eric Guillaume,
Michel Pedon, Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin,                 Ð fix a minimum rate of tax on beer of ECU 1.87 per
JeÂrôme Canini; liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance              degree per hectolitre
Assistance SARL Ð on the following questions:
                                                                    Ð whereas they authorise taxation of wine by reference
Ð In Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and                  solely to the volume, with a minimum rate of zero,
     of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the
     posting of workers in the framework of the provision           thus requiring Member States to raise the tax on beer to
     of services (1), does the term period of posting'             the said minimum rate and so bringing about the creation
     encompass the part-time period spent, whether                  of tax differentials liable to discriminate between wine and
     randomly or not, by a frontier-zone worker who                 beer?
     comes from an undertaking in a Member State,
     performing, in the course of days, weeks or a month, a         (1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
     part of his services in the adjacent territory or              (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.
     territories of one or more other Member States?
Ð Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as being infringed where a Member State,
     for overriding reasons relating to the public interest,
     requires any undertaking from another Member State             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste
     employing persons, even temporarily, on the territory          Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 15 April
     of the first State to comply with its legislation or           1998 in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     collective labour agreements relating to minimum               Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     wages, where that interest is already protected by the         administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     rules of the State in which the service provider is            jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     established and workers there are already in a                             proceedings concerning that company
     comparable or similar position on the basis not solely
                                                                                (Case C-167/98)
     of the legislation relating to minimum wages but of
     the overall position (impact of taxation, welfare                                       (98/C 209/49)
     protection in relation to illness, including under the
     obligatory supplementary insurance which applies in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     France, and to industrial accidents, widowhood,                European Communities by order of the Oberste
     unemployment, retirement and death)?                           Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Vienna, of 15 April 1998,
                                                                    received at the Court Registry on 30 April 1998, for a
Ð In the same context, put differently: are the temporary
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     national obligations set for employees to be
                                                                    Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     understood as solely the minimum hourly rate of pay
                                                                    administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     without assessing the overall position as regards the
                                                                    jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     welfare protection enjoyed by employees who are
                                                                    proceedings concerning that company, on the following
     required in their work to move from one State to
                                                                    question:
     another?
                                                                    Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to
(1) OJ L 18, 24.1.1997, p. 1.
                                                                    cover an existing foreign-currency debt (in this case in
                                                                    German marks (DM)) constitute a restriction on the
                                                                    movement of capital and payments compatible with
                                                                    Article 73(b) of the EC Treaty?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance, Foix, by judgment of that court of
21 April 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de
       Distribution v. Receveur Principal des Douanes
                                                                    Action brought on 4 May 1998 by the Grand Duchy of
                        (Case C-166/98)
                                                                    Luxembourg against the European Parliament and the
                         (98/C 209/48)                                             Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-168/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                                        (98/C 209/50)
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Foix (France), of
21 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry             An action against the European Parliament and the
on 29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           Council of the European Union was brought before the
SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de Distribution v. Receveur                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May
Principal des Douanes on the following question:                    1998 by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by


title: Case C-444/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — International removal services market in Belgium — Direct and indirect price-fixing, market-sharing and manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Value of sales — Concept — Proportion — Additional amount — Mitigating circumstances — Obligation to state reasons — Imputability to the parent company of the infringement — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Proportionality)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-444/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Direct and indirect price-fixing, market-sharing and manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Value of sales - Concept - Proportion - Additional amount - Mitigating circumstances - Obligation to state reasons - Imputability to the parent company of the infringement - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Proportionality)
   2013/C 252/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Team Relocations NV (represented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken and L. Gyselen, avocaten), Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd, Team Relocations Ltd

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen and by A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPEAL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08 Team Relocations NV and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), concerning a cartel on the Belgium international removal services market involving direct and indirect price-fixing, market-sharing and manipulation of the procedures for the submission of tenders, and the annulment of the fine imposed on the applicant or, in the alternative, reduction of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd jointly and severally to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Order of the Court of 31 October 2013 in Case E-2/12 — INT, HOB-vín ehf. (Interpretation of a judgment — Advisory opinion — Application manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               20.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/14

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   of 31 October 2013
   in Case E-2/12
   INT, HOB-vín ehf.
   (Interpretation of a judgment — Advisory opinion — Application manifestly inadmissible)
   2014/C 81/14
   In Case E-2/12 INT, HOB-vín ehf. — APPLICATION under Article 39 of the Statute of the Court and Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure for an interpretation of the judgment of the Court of 11 December 2012 in Case E-2/12 HOB-vín [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1092, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 31 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-372/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Visti Beheer v OHIM — Meister (GOLD MEISTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark GOLD MEISTER — Earlier national and Community trade marks MEISTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Visti Beheer v OHIM — Meister (GOLD MEISTER)
   (Case T-372/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark GOLD MEISTER - Earlier national and Community trade marks MEISTER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 139/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Visti Beheer BV (Helmond, The Netherlands) (represented by: A. Herbetz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Meister & Co. AG (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: V. Knies, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Meister & Co. AG and Visti Beheer BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Visti Beheer BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders Meister & Co. AG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-623/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/23

         Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)
   (Case T-623/16)
   (2016/C 383/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MAIN AUTO WHEELS’ — Application No 12 863 643

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 in Case R 2189/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-148/15 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2016 — Brouillard v Commission (Civil Service — Non-admission to the tests in a competition — Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/27

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2016 — Brouillard v Commission
   (Case F-148/15 R)
   ((Civil Service - Non-admission to the tests in a competition - Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 090/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (Forest, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 — French-language lawyer-linguists (AD 7) not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition on the ground that he did not have a level of education corresponding to a completed course of legal training from a Belgian, French or Luxemburgish institution of higher education.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Brouillard’s application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-177/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Demarchi Gino S.a.s. v Ministero della Giustizia

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Demarchi Gino S.a.s. v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-177/17)
   (2017/C 277/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Demarchi Gino S.a.s.

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Question referred

   Does the principle that everyone is entitled to a hearing by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, affirmed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which has become a principle of European Union law by virtue of Article 6(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle arising from Article 67 TFEU, according to which the Union is to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights, and the principle arising from Articles 81 and 82 TFEU, according to which, in civil and criminal matters having cross-border implications, the Union is to develop judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases, preclude national provisions, such as the Italian provisions contained in Article 5 sexies of Law No 89/2001, which impose on persons entitled to the payment by the Italian State of ‘fair compensation’ in respect of the unreasonable duration of legal proceedings a series of obligations which they must fulfil in order to obtain such payment, and to await the expiry of the period referred to in Article 5 sexies (5) of Law No 89/2001 without, in the meanwhile, being entitled to take any legal action for enforcement and without subsequently being able to claim damages in respect of late payment, even in cases in which the ‘fair compensation’ has been awarded in respect of the unreasonable duration of civil proceedings which have cross-border implications or which involve a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union and/or a matter in relation to which the European Union provides for the reciprocal recognition of judgments?