title: Case C-406/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu v Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public works contracts — Regularity of the obligation imposed on tenderers to perform a certain percentage of the contract without using subcontractors — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — General provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund — Obligation for the Member States to carry out a financial correction in relation to the irregularities identified — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Need for a financial correction in the event of infringement of EU law on public procurement)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu v Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju
   (Case C-406/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public works contracts - Regularity of the obligation imposed on tenderers to perform a certain percentage of the contract without using subcontractors - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - General provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund - Obligation for the Member States to carry out a financial correction in relation to the irregularities identified - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Need for a financial correction in the event of infringement of EU law on public procurement))
   (2016/C 335/05)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu

      Defendant: Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority is not authorised to require, by a stipulation in the tender specifications of a public works contract, that the future contractor of that contract perform with its own resources a certain percentage of the works covered by that contract.

               2.

               Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(7) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a contracting authority imposed a requirement, in the context of a public works contract relating to a project receiving EU financial aid, that the future contractor perform by means of its own resources at least 25 % of those works, in infringement of Directive 2004/18, constitutes an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 2(7) of that regulation, justifying the need to apply a financial correction under Article 98 thereof, in so far as it cannot be excluded that that infringement had an impact on the budget of the Fund at issue. The amount of that correction must be calculated by taking into account all of the specific circumstances which are relevant in the light of the criteria referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of that regulation, namely the nature and gravity of the irregularity and the resulting financial loss to the Fund concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-646/14: Order of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Micula and Others v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/44

         Order of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Micula and Others v Commission
   (Case T-646/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/61)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-128/03 and C-129/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l'Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA

text:
21.6.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         a)     Can an administrative measure which, on the terms and
                                                                               for the purposes stated in the reasoning, imposes on
                                                                               certain undertakings using the electricity transmission
If — as is the case with the Municipality of the City of Munich                network an increased charge for access and use in order
— the conditions for the existence of a body governed by                       to finance general revenue charges of the electricity
                                                                               system be regarded as a State aid for the purposes of
public law are met, there is no need under the directive to
draw a distinction, in the case of every requested provision of                Article 87 et seq. EC
services, as to whether such services are provided in the general
interest and are commercial in nature. It is for that reason            b)     Must the principles established in Directive 96/92 (1)
irrelevant that, in the present case, the City of Munich, in                   concerning the liberalisation of the internal electricity
connection with the provision of a service for a third party,                  market and in particular Article 7 and 8 thereof concern-
burns waste in its own incineration plant and does not effect                  ing operation of the electricity transmission network be
the transport to that plant itself but relies on a private                     interpreted as precluding the possibility for the Member
undertaking to do so. If a public body tenders successfully for                State to adopt measures imposing for a transitional period
a contract but is obliged to subcontract out certain services in               on certain undertakings for access to and use of the
order to ensure provision of the overall service, that public                  transmission network an increased charge in order to
body must apply the procedures set out in Directive 92/50.                     offset the overvaluation of hydroelectric and geothermal
                                                                               electricity occasioned, as stated in the reasoning, by the
                                                                               altered legislative framework and to finance general
The obligation to end breaches of the Community law on the                     revenue charges of the electricity system.
award of contracts even by terminating contracts that have
already been concluded can also not be placed in question by
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (2), which deals with ex post          (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
facto review of potential breaches of the Community law on                   of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
tendering. A Treaty infringement can be treated as terminated                market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20).
only once the Member State concerned recognises the illegal
nature of its action and the breach has been completely
brought to an end.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-130/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                              (2003/C 146/36)
Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM
Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia
  elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 March
                 (Case C-128/03 and C-129/03)                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Niels Bertil Rasmussen and Luigi Cimaglia,
                                                                        acting as Agents.
                          (2003/C 146/35)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —      Declare that, by failing to designate Community trade
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                        mark courts and tribunals of first and second instance, or
(Council of State) of 14 January 2003, received at the Court                   in any event by failing to forward to the Commission,
Registry on 24 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                     within the prescribed period, a list of such courts and
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino                         tribunals indicating their names and territorial jurisdic-
SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per                tion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA on the following                      under Article 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
questions:                                                                     of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;


title: Case T-241/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Poland v Commission (EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — ‘Guarantee’ Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Direct payments — Identification system for agricultural parcels — Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Lack of effectiveness and reliability — Intentional irregularities — Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-241/10) (1)

   (EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Direct payments - Identification system for agricultural parcels - Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Lack of effectiveness and reliability - Intentional irregularities - Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)
   2013/C 108/55
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Szmytkowska and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-347/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Adelholzener Alpenquellen v OHIM (Shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of declaration as to the scope of the protection — Article 37(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Infringements of the rights of the defence — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Adelholzener Alpenquellen v OHIM (Shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern)
   (Case T-347/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of declaration as to the scope of the protection - Article 37(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Infringements of the rights of the defence - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 156/67
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Adelholzener Alpenquellen GmbH (Siegsdorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner and subsequently by: A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1516/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a bottle with an embossed pattern as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Adelholzener Alpenquellen GmbH to pay the costs..

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-270/00: Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Italgas against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/29
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Conepo Servizi                       —     annul Article 5 of that decision;
s.c.a r.l. against Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties                                       —     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the decision in so far
                                                                                as it refers to the tax concessions under Article 2 of the
                          (Case T-268/00)                                         Ministerial Decree of 5 August 1994 in Article 1 of the
                                                                                operative part of the decision;
                          (2000/C 355/64)                                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                            forward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Conepo
Servizi s.c.a r.l., represented by Alfredo Biagini, of the Rome             Carità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess Sociale
Bar, and Silvia Scarpa and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.             and Others v Commission (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Italgas against
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in                         Commission of the European Communities
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).                                               (Case T-270/00)
(1) Not yet published.                                                                               (2000/C 355/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 17 September 2000 by Italgas,
Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Baglioni Hotels
                                                                            represented by Massimo Merola and Claudio Tesauro, of the
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            Rome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo, of the Brussels Bar.
     (Case T-269/00, T-271/00, T-272/00 and T-273/00)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 355/65)                                   —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 2000 by Baglioni
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Hotels, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo,                   Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
                                                                            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
      No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999;


title: Case T-272/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine — Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission
      (Case T-272/12) (1)

      (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine - Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2015/C 016/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic); and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented initially by K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, and subsequently by J Schmidt, R. Klotz and M. Hofmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, and subsequently by R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (refusal to submit to an inspection) (Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case C-357/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 2008/7/EC — Article 2(1)(b) and (c) — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Subjection to capital duty — Contributions of capital to a partnership limited by shares — Classification of such a partnership as a capital company)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-357/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 2008/7/EC - Article 2(1)(b) and (c) - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Subjection to capital duty - Contributions of capital to a partnership limited by shares - Classification of such a partnership as a capital company))
   (2015/C 205/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as meaning that a partnership limited by shares under Polish law must be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of that provision even if only some of its capital and members are able to satisfy the conditions laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000 in Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman and Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v European Parliament (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Auxiliary interpreters employed for the sessions of the Parliament — Lawfulness of the deduction of Community tax from their remuneration)

text:
C 122/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
     — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of                                  of 9 March 2000
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
                                                                           in Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros v Commission of the
        infringement after 19 March 1984;
                                                                                European Communities (1)
     — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the               (Officials — Classification in grade — Professional experi-
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of                                   ence)
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the                                (2000/C 122/40)
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of                          (Language of the case: French)
        rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                           In Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros, an official of the Commission
     — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
        the applicant;                                                     by M.-A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
     — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        J. Currall and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annul-
        the applicant;                                                     ment of the Commission decision of 15 March 1996 determin-
                                                                           ing the applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7 and
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 November
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1996 dismissing the applicant’s administrative complaint —
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of
                                                                           B. Vesterdorf, ruling as a single judge; H. Jung, Registrar, has
     — orders each party to bear its own costs.                            given a judgment on 9 March 2000, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
42. In Case T-104/95 Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission:                      1. The application is dismissed;
     — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds           2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;                       (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
     — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;
     — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 510 000;
                                                                                of 23 February 2000
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman
                                                                             and Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v European Parliament (1)
     — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
        of the costs incurred by the Commission;                           (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Auxiliary interpreters
                                                                           employed for the sessions of the Parliament — Lawfulness
                                                                           of the deduction of Community tax from their remuneration)
     — orders the Commission to bear one half of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/41)
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, C 119 of 13.5.1995, C 137 of 3.6.1995                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
    and C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman and
                                                                           Petra Van Eynde-Neutens, conference interpreters respectively
                                                                           residing in Zurich (Switzerland) and in Brussels, represented
                                                                           by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 122/31
the Netherlands Hoge Raad and of the Brussels Bar, with an                2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May, 31 Grand-Rue, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred
Peter, João Sant’Anna, Francis Herbert and Dirk Arts) —                  (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
application for reimbursement of the Community tax deducted
from the applicants’ remuneration (Cases T-223/97 and
T-17/98) and, by way of subsidiary relief, for compensation
for the damage flowing from the double taxation of that
remuneration (Case T-17/98) — the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 February 2000,
in which it:
                                                                                of 22 February 2000
1. Dismisses the applications for annulment in Cases T-223/97
     and T-17/98;                                                         in Case T-138/98 Armement Coopératif Artisanal Ven-
                                                                          déen (ACAV) and Others v Council of the European
2. Dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-17/98;                                        Union (1)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                            (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 — Prohibition of
                                                                              drift-nets — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                              (2000/C 122/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-138/98: Armement Coopératif Artisanal Vendéen
                                                                          (ACAV), established in Sables-d’Olonne (France), and Arme-
                                                                          ment Alain André and ACAV, Armement Thierry Arnaud
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and ACAV, Armement Alain Augereau, Armement Jean-Luc
                                                                          Bernard et Angélique Bernard, Armement Pascal Burgaud,
                      of 24 February 2000                                 Armement José Burgaud and ACAV, Armement Bruno Chiron
                                                                          et Jean Noury, Fabien Gaillard, Armement Bruno Girard,
                                                                          Armement Bruno Girard and ACAV, Armement Denis Grois-
in Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs v Commission of the
                                                                          ard, Fabrice Groisard, Armement Islais SARL, Armement Marc
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Jolivet, Armement Yannick Orsonneau and ACAV, Armement
                                                                          Christian Rafin and ACAV, Armement Éric Rivalin and ACAV,
(Officials — Promotion — Absence of staff report —                        Armement Eric Taraud and ACAV, Armement Fernand Voisin
            Irregularity in the promotion procedure)                      et Alain Voisin, Patrick Voisin, Yeu Pêcheries SA, Armement
                                                                          Bernard Zereg, established in Ile-d’Yeu (France), represented by
                         (2000/C 122/42)                                  L. Funck-Brentano and S. Ponsot, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Neuen,
                                                                          1 Place du Théâtre, supported by the French Republic (Agents:
                                                                          J.-F. Dobelle, C. Vasak and K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavan-
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          ce), by the Commune de l’Ile-d’Yeu, represented by R. Houssin,
                                                                          of the Nantes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs, an official of the Commission of           at the Chambers of J. Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre, by Ireland
the European Communities, resident in Walshoutem, Belgium,                (Agents M.A. Buckley and A. Collins) and by Thomas Kennedy,
represented by J.-N. Louis and F. Parmentier of the Brussels Bar          John Graham, John Flannery, Michael Hennessy and Padraig Ó
and F. Giuffrida of the Turin Bar, with an address for service in         Mathuna, residing in Dingle (Ireland), Vincent Browne, Michael
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson S.à.r.l., 30                Murphy, John O’Donnel, residing in Tralee (Ireland), Donal
Rue de Cessange, against the Commission of the European                   O’Neill, John D. Sullivan, Niel Minihane, Kieran O’Driscoll,
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Peter Carleton, Donal Healy, residing in Castletownbere (Ire-
Clotuche) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     land), Gerard Minihane, residing in Skibbereen (Ireland), rep-
mission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B 4              resented by D. O’Donnell, SC, J. Devlin, Barrister, G. Casey,
in the 1997 promotion year — the Court of First Instance                  Solicitor, and P. McDermott, Barrister, North Main Street,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the                Bandon, County Cork (Ireland) v Council of the European
Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,            Union (Agents J. Carbery and L. Railas), supported by the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by the
24 February 2000, in which it:                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Ber-
                                                                          scheid and T. van Rijn) — application for annulment of
1. annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant          Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998
     to Grade B 4 in the 1997 promotion year;                             amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain


title: Case T-88/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2013 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10, Z v Court of Justice

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/10

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2013 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10, Z v Court of Justice
   (Case T-88/13 P)
   2013/C 233/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               declare the appeal well-founded;

               —

               accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10 Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;

               —

               rule in accordance with the applications initiating proceedings in Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10;

               —

               order the opposing party to pay the costs of both instances;

               —

               reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eleven grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging the absence of an effective remedy, as the Civil Service Tribunal is restricting the appellant’s action against the institutions.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging the lack of competence on the part of Judge Rofes i Pujol to rule on the application for the recusal of Judge Van Raepenbusch.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing since the appellant did not have the possibility of appealing against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the application for the recusal of a judge.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to proof and of the obligation to establish the substantive truth of the reasons of the Appointing Authority which gave rise to the reassignment decision and the disciplinary decision.

               6.

               Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the reassignment decision had been adopted solely in the interest of the service within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

               7.

               Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the posts are equivalent for the purposes of Article 7 of those Staff Regulations.

               8.

               Eighth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing.

               9.

               Ninth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal declared inadmissible the claim for compensation of the damage arising from the publication of the reassignment decision within the institution, even though the appellant was not required to bring pre-litigation administrative proceedings in order to assert her claim for compensation.

               10.

               Tenth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the Complaints Committee was competent to take a decision on the appellant’s complaint.

               11.

               Eleventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as the Civil Service Tribunal did not hold that the respondent had infringed Articles 1 to 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, the rights of the defence and the rule that the parties should be heard during the disciplinary proceedings.


title: Case C-449/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — G. Elbertsen v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Establishment of the reference amount — Farmers in a special situation — National reserve)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — G. Elbertsen v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-449/08) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Establishment of the reference amount - Farmers in a special situation - National reserve)
   2009/C 297/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G. Elbertsen

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 42(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1) — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Establishment of the reference amount — Entitlement to payment not granted in certain situations

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 42(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as giving the Member States such discretion as to permit them to establish a reference amount of EUR 0 and not to allocate any payment entitlements from the national reserve to a farmer who finds himself in a special situation as described in Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2004 of 29 October 2004, provided that that amount is based on objective criteria, does not prejudice the equal treatment of farmers and does not create market or competition distortions.

               2.

               Community law does not preclude the application of a national provision under which any increase in the amount of additional payments arising as a result of an investment in production capacity or a purchase of land is subject to a deduction of EUR 500 before a reference amount is established as the basis for the allocation of entitlements to payments from the national reserve.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-302/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): in the proceedings brought on behalf of Nils Laurin Effing (Family benefits — Grant by a Member State of advances on maintenance payments for minor children — Child of a prisoner — Conditions of granting the maintenance payment — Prisoner transferred to another Member State to serve his sentence — Article 12 EC — Articles 3 and 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-302/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): in the proceedings brought on behalf of Nils Laurin Effing (1)

   (Family benefits - Grant by a Member State of advances on maintenance payments for minor children - Child of a prisoner - Conditions of granting the maintenance payment - Prisoner transferred to another Member State to serve his sentence - Article 12 EC - Articles 3 and 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2005/C 57/08)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-302/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 11 July 2002, received at the Court on 26 August 2002, in the proceedings brought on behalf of Nils Laurin Effing – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it ruled:
   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which an employed person within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, has been transferred, as a prisoner, to the Member State from which he comes in order to serve the remainder of his sentence there, it is the legislation of that Member State which, in the area of family benefits and in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(2) of that regulation, is the applicable legislation. Neither the provisions of that regulation, particularly Article 3 thereof, nor Article 12 EC, preclude, in such a situation, the legislation of a Member State from making the grant of family benefits such as those provided for by the Österreichisches Bundesgesetz über die Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern (Unterhaltsvorschußgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant of Advances for the Maintenance of Children) to the members of the family of such a Community national subject to the condition that he remain a prisoner in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.


title: Case C-593/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2012 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/7

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2012 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-593/12 P)
   2013/C 55/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10;

               —

               Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office’s Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, the Appellant claims that the General Court violated Article 53(1) CTMR (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that COLOR FOCUS must be declared invalid because of likelihood of confusion.

               Second, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed reversible legal error in dismissing the Appellant’s claim that the assertion of rights based on the mark FOCUS amounts to an ‘abuse of rights’.

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


title: Case T-356/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/71

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
   (Case T-356/17)
   (2017/C 239/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RoB’ — EU trade mark No 5 752 324

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1407/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-90/06: Action brought on  20 March 2006  — TOMORROW FOCUS v OHIM

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/28

         Action brought on 20 March 2006 — TOMORROW FOCUS v OHIM
   (Case T-90/06)
   (2006/C 108/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: TOMORROW FOCUS AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: U. Gürtler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Information Builders (Netherlands) B.V. (Amstelveen, Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) inasmuch as that decision rejects application No 002382455 for Community trade mark ‘Tomorrow Focus’;

               —

               amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) in such a way that registration of application No 002382455 for Community trade mark ‘Tomorrow Focus’ is also granted in respect of the goods ‘computers and data processing apparatus’ and the services ‘computer programming and design of computer programs (computer software); maintenance and upgrading of computer programs, and on-line upgrading services’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Tomorrow Focus’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 (application No 2382455)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Information Builders (Netherlands) B.V.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Focus’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (Community trade mark No 68585)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: grant of the opposition and rejection of the application in respect of classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision, rejection of the application for certain goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 and rejection of the remainder of the opposition

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the ground that it was incorrectly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks compared.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-128/05: Action brought on  20 December 2005  — Claude Adolf and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/56

         Action brought on 20 December 2005 — Claude Adolf and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-128/05)
   (2006/C 60/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Claude Adolf and Others (represented by: L. Levi and G Vandersanden, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

               —

               consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of the country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living as between the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in this case are all officials who retired before 1 May 2004. They object to the transitional conditions being applied, pending the removal of weightings by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities, in so far as those conditions are based on a new calculation of ‘pension’ weightings which is no longer based on the capital city but on the average cost of living in the Member State where the pensioner proves that he has established his principal residence.
   In support of their contentions, the applicants claim, first, that the abovementioned regulation is based on an incorrect statement of reasons, in so far as neither the increased integration of the Community, nor freedom of movement and of residence nor the difficulty in verifying pensioners' actual place of residence can serve as a basis for the transitional regime at issue.
   Next, the applicants allege infringement in this case of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, retroactivity of acquired rights and protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-380/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of  19 April 2005  in Centro Europa 7 Srl v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Centro Europa 7 Srl v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-380/05)
   (2006/C 10/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato of 19 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Centro Europa 7 Srl and Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Ministry of Communications) e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, (Authority for Security of Communications) Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Directorate General for Authorisations and Concessions in the Ministry for Communications) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 10 of the ECHR, as referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, guarantee pluralism in the broadcasting sector, thus requiring the Member States to secure pluralism and competition in the sector based on an antitrust system which, in relation to technological development, secures network access and multiplicity of operators and renders duopolistic market behaviours unlawful?

               2.

               Do the provisions of the EC Treaty which secure freedom to provide services and competition, on the interpretation provided by the Commission in the interpretative communication of 29 April 2000 on grants of rights under Community law, require the principles governing that matter to be capable of ensuring equal non-discriminatory treatment, as well as transparency, proportionality and respect for the rights of individuals; and are those provisions and principles of the Treaty infringed by Article 3(7) of Italian law no 249/1997, and by Article 1 of decree-law no 352 of 24 December 2003 converted into Law no 112/2004 (Gasparri law), inasmuch as those provisions enabled individuals operating networks in breach of the limits laid down by competition law to continue to operate, thereby excluding operators, such as the appellant undertaking, which, though in possession of the relevant rights granted following a regular competitive procedure, were unable to carry on the activity in respect of which such rights were granted because of a failure to allocate frequencies (owing to their insufficient number or scarcity as a result of the continued exercise of rights by the owners of networks in breach of the limits on concentrations under antitrust law).

               3.

               With effect from 25 July 2003, does Article 17 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) (authorisation directive) render that directive directly effective in the internal legal order and oblige a Member State which has granted broadcasting rights (right to install networks or provide electronic communication services or the right to use frequencies) to bring them into line with Community rules; and does that entail the need actually to allocate the frequencies necessary for carrying on the activity in question.

               4.

               Do Article 9 of framework directive 2002/21/EC (2) and Article 5 of the authorisation directive providing for transparent and non-discriminatory public procedures (Article 5) conducted on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria (Article 9) preclude a system providing for general authorisation under national law (Article 23(5) of law no 112/2004); by permitting the continued operation, under that system of networks in breach of limits and not selected under a competitive procedure, do those provisions ultimately impinge on the Community-law rights under (Article 17(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC) of other undertakings which are prevented from operating even though they have been successful in competitive procedures.

               5.

               Do Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC (framework directive), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC (authorisation directive), and Article 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC (3), require the Member States to arrange for the cessation, at least as from 25 July 2003 (see Article 17 of the authorisation directive), of a situation in which frequencies are actually occupied (use of facilities without grant of rights or authorisations issued following a comparison of the applicants); thus, with regard to the broadcasting system operated, is the conduct of broadcasting precluded where there is no proper planning in regard to matters concerning the airwaves and no logical increase in pluralism and contradictions with rights actually awarded by the Member State following a public procedure.

               6.

               Is the derogation in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC (authorisation directive), and in Article 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC, available to be relied on by the Member State solely in order to protect pluralism of information and to guarantee the protection of cultural or linguistic diversity and not in favour of operators of networks in breach of the limits laid down in national competition legislation.

               7.

               In order to benefit from the derogation under Article 5 of Directive 2002/20/EC, does the Member State have to indicate the objectives actually pursued by the national derogatory rules.

               8.

               May that derogation be applied, in addition to the case of the concessionary of the public broadcasting service (RAI in Italy), in favour also of private operators not successful in competitive procedures and to the detriment of undertakings who may have duly been granted rights following a competitive procedure?

               9.

               Under Community rules (primary and secondary legislation) on workable competition in the broadcasting sector, ought the national legislature to have avoided extending the old transitory analogue system on the advent of the terrestrial digital system (and the attendant generalised transition to digital)? Only if analogue broadcasting is ended and replaced by the switch to digital will it be possible to reallocate frequencies freed for various uses. If terrestrial digital is merely operated alongside analogue, there will be an attendant accentuating of the scarcity of available frequencies owing to the existence of analogue and digital transmission in parallel (simulcast).

               10.

               Lastly, is the pluralism of sources of information and of competition in the broadcasting sector, which is guaranteed by European law, secured by national rules, such as law no 112/2004 providing for a new limit of 20 percent of resources linked to a new very wide criterion (the ICS — integrated communications system — Article 2(g) and Article 15 of law no 112/2004). This criterion also brings in activities which do not affect media pluralism, whereas under antitrust law the ‘relevant market’ is constructed normally by differentiating the markets in the broadcasting sector by drawing a distinction between pay/TV and non-pay TV operating via the airwaves (reference is made inter alia to the Commission cases COMP/JV. 37-BSKYB/Kirch Pay TV Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Merger Procedure 21/03/2000 and COMP/M.2876-Newscorp-TELEPIU Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Merger Procedure 2/04/2003.

      (1)  OJ L 108, de 24.4.2002, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ L 108, de 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ L 249, de 17.9.2002, p. 21.


title: Case T-13/12: Order of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission (Application for annulment and compensation — Public health — List of food additives authorised in foodstuffs — Steviol glycosides — Application inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/12

         Order of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission
   (Case T-13/12) (1)

   (Application for annulment and compensation - Public health - List of food additives authorised in foodstuffs - Steviol glycosides - Application inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 359/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 of the Commission of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides (OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205), in so far as it authorises the use of steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant only as food additives and not as vegetable ingredients of agricultural origin or as aromatic preparations, and a claim for compensation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2000 in Case T-23/00: A v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Criminal conviction by a national court — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)

text:
C 95/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
Chambers of M. Karp, 84 Grand-Rue, against European                       B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and G. Vandersanden)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 November
— application for compensation for the non-material damage                2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
which the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the
refusal of the European Investment Bank to comply with the                1.    The Commission’s decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999                    recognise the occupational origin of the disease suffered by
in Case T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and                         Arlette Fernandes-De Corte is annulled;
II-897 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), compo-
sed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,        2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 2000 in which it:                                 3.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
      EUR 25 000 in reparation of the non-material damage which           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.00.
      he has incurred;
2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs relating
      to the main proceedings;
3.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the cashier of
      the Court the sum of EUR 3 000, or any lower amount
      justified by the applicant as expenses relating to the main             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      proceedings;
                                                                                of 21 November 2000
4.    Orders each party to bear its own costs in regard to the
      proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                          in Case T-23/00: A v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
                                                                          (Officials — Criminal conviction by a national court —
                                                                                Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/23)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                      of 15 November 2000                                 In Case T-23/00: A, a former official of the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by L. Vogel, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
in Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes v Commission
                                                                          Chambers of C. Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
                                                                          sia and J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the
(Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos                  Commission’s decision of 4 November 1999 rejecting the
and other substances — Irregularity in the opinion of the                 complaint lodged by the applicant challenging its decision of
            medical committee — Default procedure)                        23 April 1999 ordering his removal from post and, so far as
                                                                          is necessary, annulment of the opinion delivered by the
                           (2001/C 95/22)                                 Disciplinary Board on 30 November 1998 — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          21 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes, an official of                    1.    The application is dismissed;
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels             2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, against
Commission of the European Communities — application for                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
the annulment of the Commission decision of 10 February
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of the applicant’s wife —


title: Case F-45/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2009 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/88

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-45/11) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2009 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 048/97)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2009 in so far as it does not award him A or B+ and does not propose him for promotion to Function D.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 22 September 2010;

               2.

               Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2009, the decision of 25 March 2010 refusing promotion or ‘all connected, consequent and prior acts’

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 35.


title: Composition of the EFTA Court

text:
Important legal notice

|

E2001J1206(01)

Composition of the EFTA Court

Official Journal C 344 , 06/12/2001 P. 0008 - 0008

Composition of the EFTA Court(2001/C 344/07)Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA CourtMr Lucien Dedichen was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 2001 to 31 August 2003, to succeed Mr Gunnar Selvik. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court of 19 October 2001, Mr Lucien Dedichen took the oath prescribed in Article 10, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement.


title: Case T-82/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — Apple Computer International v Commission (Actions for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — Apple Computer International v Commission
   (Case T-82/06) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Person not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 107/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Apple Computer International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, P. Sreenan SC, and B. Quigley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 of 23 December 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2005 L 346, p. 7)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Apple Computer International shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-236/02: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Referral to the General Court after annulment — Civil service — Officials — Employment in a non-Member state — Reassignment of post and post holder — Rights of the defence — Claim for damages — Full jurisdiction)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-236/02) (1)

   (Referral to the General Court after annulment - Civil service - Officials - Employment in a non-Member state - Reassignment of post and post holder - Rights of the defence - Claim for damages - Full jurisdiction)
   2011/C 311/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 March 2002 which reassigned the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels (Belgium), of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission’s notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the External Service Steering Committee, and, second, a claim for allowances in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2002 which reassigned Mr Luigi Marcuccio from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels (Belgium).

               2.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Marcucccio.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-261/05: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  9 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság) — Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft. v Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Accession to the European Union — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Application ratione temporis — Article 33 — Local tax on economic operations — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court )

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/4

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság) — Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft. v Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   (Case C-261/05) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Accession to the European Union - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Application ratione temporis - Article 33 - Local tax on economic operations - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court )
   (2006/C 154/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicants: Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft.

      Defendant: Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Art. 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Prohibition of taxes capable of being characterised as turnover taxes — National rules authorising the local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations
   Operative part of the order
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities does not have the jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the order of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht of 28 November 1994 in the case of Aororita Hanßen v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Case C-6/95)

text:
4. 3. 95               m                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 54/7
If the answer is in the affirmative : Is this also the case where               non-Member State if he would ( in theory) be entitled,
national law alone is to be applied in the recovery                             were he a national of the State in which he resides, and
proceedings on the ground that the parties to the                               according to its laws, to claim unemployment benefit
enforcement proceedings are resident within the State and                       from the competent authority of the State in which he
the enforceable decision was also obtained within the                           resides by virtue of a convention between that State and
State ?                                                                         the non-Member State ?
                                                                         ( b ) Do the provisions of an international social security
                                                                                convention which is concluded with a non-Member
                                                                                State and which ranks as domestic law by virtue of
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                        having been ratified constitute legislation within the
orders of the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of                        meaning of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC )
25 November 1994 in the cases of Fritz Stober v.                                No 1408/71 ?
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
                     Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            (c) Is it possible to infer from Community law a rule that
                    (Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 )                                  Community law is not applicable to employment in a
                                                                                non-Member State ?
                            ( 95/C 54/12 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ( d) Does Chapter 6 of Title III of Regulation (EEC)
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        No 1408/71 lay down definitive rules for the
Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia Higher                              calculation of periods of employment, thus excluding
Social Court) — 13th Chamber — of 25 November 1994,                             the application of the principle of equality of treatments
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 January                         in that regard ?
1995, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Fritz Stober v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Federal Employment Office )                    (*) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( Case C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit on the following question:
for the purposes of the payment of family allowances in the
Federal Republic of Germany, is a person who carries on an
activity as a self-employed person in the Federal Republic of            Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by John Deere Ltd
Germany and as such satisfies the definition of a                        against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by the
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1 ( a ) ( iv ) but not the definition contained in the first             European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
sub-alternative of the second alternative in Article 1 (a ) ( ii) in     Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
conjunction with Paragraph I.C.(b ) of Annex I a                                                    Communities
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article 73 of                                        (Case C-7/95 P)
Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ( x )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/14 )
( x ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 October
                                                                          1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
                                                                         Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                 Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
order of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht                the European Communities on 13 January 1995 by John
of 28 November 1994 in the case of Aororita Hansen v.                    Deere Ltd, of 15/19 York Place, Edinburgh (United
                      Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                           Kingdom), represented by Hans-Jorg Niemeyer and Rainer
                           (Case C-6/95 )                                Bechtold, Rechtsanwalte, of Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch and
                             ( 95/C 54/13 )                              Partners, Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 ,
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European           Communities         by      order      of     the
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht ( Schleswig                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Holstein Higher Social Court) — 7th Division — of
28 November 1994, which was received at the Court                        1 . quash the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Registry on 13 January 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  27 October 1994 in case T-35/92, notified to the
case of Aororita HanEen v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            Appellant on 3 November 1994;
( Federal Employment Office) on the following questions:
                                                                         2 . annul      the   Commission      decision   92/157/EEC      of
(a ) Under Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                               17 February 1992 relating to a proceeding under
       No 1408/71 0 ), is a national of a Member State                         Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/B-2/3 1.370 and 31.446
       residing in another Member State entitled to                            — UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange (*))
       unemployment benefit on the basis of employment in a                    and


title: Case T-504/04: Action brought on 29 December 2004 by Navigazione Libera del Golfo S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/37

         Action brought on 29 December 2004 by Navigazione Libera del Golfo S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-504/04)
   (2005/C 57/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the European Commission for the annulment of the decision adopted on 16 March 2004 (1), pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 88(2) EC and Article 86(2) EC, relating to the authorisation of the aid scheme paid by Italy to the public maritime transport undertaking Caremar (Gruppo Tirrenia) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 December 2004 by Navigazione Libera del Golfo S.p.A. (NLG), established in Naples, represented by S. Ravenna, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Article 3(1) of that decision in so far as it authorises aid paid to Caremar for the passenger transport services by ship on the Naples Beverello – Capri route with effect from 1 January 1992, and order repayment of the aid unlawfully received from 6 August 1989;

               2.

               annul Article 3(2)(a) of the decision in so far as it orders the annulment of the aid for scheduled ‘fast passenger transport’ services on the Naples Beverello – Capri route with effect from 1 September 2004 instead of 6 August 1989 and at the same time ordering reimbursement of the aid unlawfully received by Caremar since the latter date;

               3.

               order performance of the obligation to reduce Caremar's ‘fast’ passenger transport capacity, by ordering cessation of the relevant services with effect from 1 January 2005;

               4.

               in the alternative, in so far as the Court of First Instance does not annul Article 3(1) in the terms stated in 1. above:

                           (a)

                           order repayment of the aid unlawfully received by Caremar in the 29 months from 6 August 1989 to 1 January 1992, the effective date of the authorisation;

                           (b)

                           annul Article 3(2)(d) in so far as it fails to lay down a requirement to disclose the costs and associated losses occasioned by the PSO (public service obligations) imposed on Caremar, and the amount of the aid allocated annually;

                           (c)

                           annul Article 5 in so far as it fails to lay down a requirement of prior notification of the aid connected to the alteration of the prices charged by Caremar, including group discounts;

               5.

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, subsistence expenses and remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant company, which, following the meeting of the Regione Campania of 14 December 2001, was charged with specific public service obligations (PSOs) without any compensation, challenges the Commission decision of 16 March 2004 relating to the State aid paid by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar (Gruppo Tirrenia) (not published in the Official Journal of the European Union), as regards in particular the provisions affecting the Naples Molo Beverello – Capri route, laid down by Article 3(1) and 3(2)(a) of the contested decision.
   Those provisions:

               —

               authorise the aid granted to Caremar for passenger transport services by ship on the Naples Beverello – Capri route, with effect from 1 January 1992, and

               —

               annul aid in respect of scheduled ‘fast passenger transport’ services on the Naples Beverello – Capri route, but with effect from 1 December 2004.

         According to the applicant, the authorisation of the aid intended to compensate for the associated losses occasioned by the PSOs imposed on Caremar, a public company, is unlawful in so far as the conditions imposed by the rules are not satisfied in the present case. In that regard, it claims that there has been an infringement of Article 86(2) EC, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/1992 of 7 December 1992, the duty to provide a sufficient and consistent statement of reasons.
   The applicant submits specifically that:

               —

               on the Naples – Capri route there has always been competition from two private shipping lines (NLG and SNAV) which provide services which are very similar if not identical throughout the year; given the effect of free-market forces, the imposition of PSOs on Caremar is therefore wholly unnecessary;

               —

               notwithstanding that, the services provided by the two private companies have also been the subject of a contract governed by public law imposed by the Regione Campania for the purpose of imposing specific PSOs on the subject of times, prices, frequency, continuity, type of vessel and service quality, which are similar or even identical to the PSOs imposed on Caremar;

               —

               in performing those services, Caremar incurs huge operating losses compensated, since 1974, by substantial aid defined as ‘annual financial balancing subsidies’ (pursuant to express decision of the Regione Campania, the private companies may not receive any subsidies);

               —

               since the cost of the PSOs imposed on Caremar was not fixed on the basis of a public invitation to tender, in assessing the propriety of the subsidies paid to the public company, the Commission should have analysed the associated losses by referring to and taking into consideration the operating costs of a medium-sized company supplying similar services (for example, the costs borne by the private undertakings competing on the same Naples – Capri route).

         Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission has misused its powers, in so far as it introduced in the contested decision criteria for subdividing the market which, by making a temporal distinction between the services supplied by ship and those provided by fast vessel, achieved the objective of authorising an aid scheme in favour of transport services provided by ship by Caremar, a scheme which would never otherwise have been declared compatible, given the existence of competition from the private companies which operate in conditions to a certain extent comparable with the passenger transport services.

      (1)  Decision not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case T-358/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission (EAFRD — Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAFRD — Decision declaring a certain amount to be non-reusable in connection with the Basilicata Region Rural Development Plan — Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-358/13) (1)

   ((EAFRD - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAFRD - Decision declaring a certain amount to be non-reusable in connection with the Basilicata Region Rural Development Plan - Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 398/44)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and B. Tidore, acting as Agents, and M. Salvatorelli, avoccato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/209/EU of 26 April 2013 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the 2012 financial year (OJ 2013 L 118, p. 23), in so far as it classifies as a ‘non-reusable amount’ the amount of EUR 5 0 06  487,10 relating to the Basilicata Region (Italy) Rural Development Plan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.