title: Case T-223/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/11
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-221/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                            (2003/C 239/16)                                          into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Mark Amay
                                                                                and in respect of a proposed new vessel MFV Mark Amay;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Padraigh Coneely,                            ings.
Claregalway, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               03 (1).
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for                    (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Girl Stephanie;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-223/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/18)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Joseph Doherty,
                                                                              Burtonport, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers                             lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
                                 munities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-222/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/17)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                      (Language of the case: English)                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           replace the MFV Aine;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Island Trawlers
Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and                —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                     ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/12                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-225/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/20)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick,
                                                                              Inishmore, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-224/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/19)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Shauan Ann;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty,
Kilronan, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Westward Isle;
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                munities
       ings.
                                                                                (Case T-226/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
                                                                              A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.


title: Case C-22/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
18.3.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/19
     of a List II disease on an approved farm or in an approved         Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
     zone, a Member State adopts a domestic measure the                         of the European Communities against Ireland
     application of which results in the destruction and slaugh-
     ter of fish, are the principles of Community law relating to                                (Case C-22/00)
     the protection of fundamental rights in particular the right
     of property, to be interpreted as having placed on a
     Member State the obligation to adopt measures providing                                     (2000/C 79/37)
     for the payment of compensation
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by
     (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale          by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
         of those fish by that owner?                                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,              Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
     court to determine whether the measures that are adopted           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
     the right of property, which the Court ensures and which           — declare that, in failing to adopt all the measures to
     derive in particular from the European Convention on                    fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
     Human Rights?                                                           Directive 87/217/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to comply with
                                                                             Directive 87/217/EEC;
3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
     differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
                                                                        — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
     concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
     fault?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing mini-
    mum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases,    Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
    OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.                                        a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                        on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                        laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
                                                                        1988 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                        ary to fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
                                                                        the directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in
the action pending before that court between Hamadeh                    (1) Council Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction
                Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA                             of environmental pollution by asbestos (OJ L 85 of 28.3.1987, p.
                                                                            40).
                           (Case C-21/00)
                           (2000/C 79/36)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice del
Pace di Massa (Office of the Justice of the Peace, Massa) of
8 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 24 January            Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
before it between Hamadeh Adnan and Fiat Sava SpA
                                                                                (Case C-33/00)
On the question of the validity and effect within Italian
territory of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April (1) in view                                  (2000/C 79/38)
of the Italian State’s failure to implement the directive in good
time or by 9 March 1995 when a deed of guarantee was
concluded by the defendant in the present action.                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
(1) Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95,      Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,
    p. 29.                                                              acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.


C 274/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9.11.2002
      AB Svenska Spel contends that the company had no                           Removal from the register of Case C-413/00 ( 1)
      knowledge of the databases and obtained the data for the
      pools coupons from other sources and that what                                              (2002/C 274/42)
      appeared on the pools coupons was not the whole or a
      substantial part of the fixture lists. Fixtures Marketing
      Limited, for its part, argues that it was irrelevant to the        By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
      assessment whether the data were obtained from sources             the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
      other than the fixture lists since the data originally came        removal from the register of Case C-413/00: Commission of
      from them.                                                         the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
5.    How should the terms ‘normal exploitation’ and
      ‘unreasonably prejudice’ in Article 7(5) be interpreted?           (1 ) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001.
      Fixtures Marketing Limited argues that AB Svenska Spel
      has repeatedly and systematically extracted and re-utilised
      the contents of the database for commercial purposes, in
      a manner which conflicts with a normal exploitation of
      that database and thereby unreasonably prejudiced the                      Removal from the register of Case C-303/01 ( 1)
      football leagues. AB Svenska Spel, for its part, contended
      that it is wrong to look at several pools coupons together                                  (2002/C 274/43)
      in making an assessment and disputes that their use is in
      breach of Article 7(5) of the directive.
                                                                         By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
( 1) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-303/01: Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others v
                                                                         Elliniko Dimosio (the Greek State) and Others.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 56, 31.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Cases C-427/99 P ( 1) and
                           C-371/00 P (2)
                         (2002/C 274/41)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-44/02 (1)
By order of 1st August 2002 the President of the Court of                                         (2002/C 274/44)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Cases C-427/99 P and C-371/00 P: RJB
Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities.                     By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-44/02: Commission of the European Com-
( 1) OJ C 20, 22.1.2000.                                                 munities v Portuguese Republic.
( 2) OJ C 355, 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.


title: Action brought on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein — (Case E-3/09)

text:
               30.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 99/10

         Action brought on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-3/09)
   2009/C 99/08
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA.
               and

               2.

               The Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance Directive.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not provided any indication that it has implemented the Directive into Liechtenstein law.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not disputed that it has not implemented the Directive.


title: Case C-142/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 263 TFEU — Criterion for direct concern — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 8 — Offer of a price undertaking by Chinese exporting producers — Acceptance by the Commission — Exemption of anti-dumping duties — Action against the acceptance decision — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/2

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA, European Commission
   (Case C-142/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 263 TFEU - Criterion for direct concern - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 8 - Offer of a price undertaking by Chinese exporting producers - Acceptance by the Commission - Exemption of anti-dumping duties - Action against the acceptance decision - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 200/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 1999 in Case C-237/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus: in the administrative proceedings brought before that court by AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours - Scope - Organisation of student exchages)

text:
1.5.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 121/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       NV, a company incorporated under the law of the Netherlands
                                                                             Antilles, established in Willemstad, Curaçao, Netherlands
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Antilles, applicants at first instance — the Court (Sixth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnem-
                       of 11 February 1999                                   alm and K.M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; H.
                                                                             von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
in Case C-390/95 P: Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v.                    11 February 1999, in which it:
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             1. dismisses the appeal;
(Competence of the Council to impose restrictions on the
import of agricultural products originating in the overseas                  2. orders Antillean Rice Mills NV, European Rice Brokers AVV
                     countries and territories)                                  and Guyana Investments AVV to pay the costs;
                          (1999/C 121/01)                                    3. orders the French Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their
                                                                                own costs.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-390/95 P: Antillean Rice Mills NV, a company                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
incorporated under the law of the Netherlands Antilles,
established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, Eurpean Rice                                             (Fifth Chamber)
Brokers AVV, a company incorporated under the law of Aruba,                                         of 11 February 1999
established in Oranjestad, Aruba and Guyana Investments
AVV, a company incorporated under the law of Aruba,                          in Case C-237/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by P. Glazener,                from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus: in the administrative
of the Amsterdam Bar, W. Knibbeler, of the Rotterdam Bar,                    proceedings brought before that court by AFS Intercul-
and J. Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an adress for service in                                tural Programs Finland ry (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe —
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                   (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended                        and package tours — Scope — Organisation of student
Composition) of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93                                                exchanges)
and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission
(1995) ECR II-2305, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                                           (1999/C 121/02)
the other parties tot the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Lasnet and T. van Rijn),
supported by Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Huber                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
and G. Houttuin), Italian Republic, represented by D. Del
Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,                                        in the European Court Reports)
French Republic, interveners at first instance, and Trading &
Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, a company incorporated under                       In Case C-237/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Netherlands law, established in Amsterdam, Alesie Curaçao                    the EC Treaty by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for an
 ---pagebreak--- C 121/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            1.5.1999
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings brought               1. Subject to the duty of the national court to interpret national law
before that court by AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                     as far as possible in conformity with Community law, it is not
on the interpreation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of                        contrary to the latter for a transitional rule of national law to
13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package                   provide that an appeal against a decision given before the
tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59) — the Court (Fifth                          date on which the rules transposing First Council Directive
Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                       89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward                     the Member States relating to trade marks into national law
and L. Sevón, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H.A. Rühl,                 were belatedly brought into force is to be decided in accordance
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment               with the rules applicable before that date, even where judgment
on 11 February 1999 in which it has ruled:                                     is given after that date.
Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,            2. The use of a trade mark, without the proprietor’s authorisation,
package holidays and package tours does not apply to travel:                   for the purpose of informing the public that another undertaking
                                                                               carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that
— Comprising student exchanges of about six months’ or a year’s                mark or that it has specialised or is a specialist in such goods
    duration;                                                                  constitutes, in circumstances such as those described in the
                                                                               judgment making the reference, use of the mark within the
— The purpose of which is attendance by the student at an                      meaning of Article 5(1) (a) of First Directive 89/104/EEC.
    educational establishment in the host country in order to
    familiarise himself with its people and culture; and                   3. Articles 5 to 7 of First Directive 89/104/EEC do not entitle the
                                                                               proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit a third party from using
— During which the student stays with a host family as if he were              the mark for the purpose of informing the public that he carries
    a member thereof free of charge.                                           out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that trade
                                                                               mark and put on the market under that mark by the proprietor
                                                                               or with his consent, or that he has specialised or is a specialist in
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                       the sale or the repair and maintenance of such goods, unless the
                                                                               mark is used in a way that may create the impression that there
                                                                               is a commercial connection between the other undertaking and
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor, and in particular that the resseller’s
                                                                               business is affiliated to the trade mark proprietor’s distribution
                                                                               network or that there is a special relationship between the two
                                                                               undertakings.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                       of 23 February 1999
in Case C-63/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bayerische Moto-
renwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald
                          Karel Deenik (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Trade-marks directive — Unauthorised use of the BMW
     trade mark in advertisements for a garage business)                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 121/03)                                                          of 25 February 1999
                                                                           in Case C-320/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela)
                                                                           José Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
                                                                           (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                    (INSS) (1)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Article 51 of the EC Treaty — Article 67 of Regulation
In case C-63/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit for persons
the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-                                          over 52 years of age)
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bayerische Motorenwerke AG                                                  (1999/C 121/04)
(BMW) and BMW Nederland BV and Ronald Karel Deenik —
on the interpretation of Articles 5 to 7 of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L40,
11.2.1989, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schint-                                    in the European Court Reports)
gen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               In case C-320/95: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
23 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                                   the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court),


title: Case T-144/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on an ivory background)
   (Case T-144/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on an ivory background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2014 (Case R 705/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on an ivory background.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-72/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-72/03)
The current application is brought against the Commission’s
Decision, of 17 December 2002, relating to proceedings under                                       (2003/C 112/66)
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement in Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Specialty Graphite,                                     (Language of the case: English)
in which it was found that certain undertakings, including
Tokai, had infringed EC/EEA competition law by fixing prices,
exchanging commercial information, fixing trading conditions
and dividing customers for isostatic graphite.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Toyo Tanso Co.,
                                                                          Ltd., Osaka, Japan, represented by Mr Jean-François Bellis an
                                                                          Ms Stephanie Reinart, Lawyers, with an address for service in
The applicant, a Japanese company producing carbon prod-                  Luxembourg.
ucts, does not contest the facts concerning its participation in
the infringement. Its purpose is the annulment, or at least the
substantial reduction of the fine imposed.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
                                                                                the applicant
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:                —     order the Commission to bear the costs.
—     the Commission infringed Article 253 EC, the principles
      of proportionality and equal treatment, and the principles          Pleas in law and main arguments
      of non bis in idem and the limits of its jurisdiction
      because it completely disregarded EEA sales and market
      share in determining the impact of competition of each              The applicant is a small company in Japan specialising in the
      undertaking’s conduct and the level of the fine. It is              production of specialty graphite. In the Decision of the
      stressed on this point that, as a japanese producer, the            Commission of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
      applicant has always been much less active in the EEA               37.667 — Specialty Graphite, the Commission found that
      market because its natural market is Asia and the Far               the applicant had participated together with seven other
      East.                                                               companies in an infringement of Article 81(1) EC Treaty and
                                                                          Article 53(1) EEA Agreement relating to isostatic specialty
                                                                          graphite. The applicant seeks the reduction of the fine imposed
                                                                          on it in Article 3 of the Decision.
—     The Commission made a manifest error of assessment,
      by wrongly estimating the size of the relevant market, in
      as much as the data on which it relied in the contested             The applicant submits that the Commission has violated the
      Decision suggest themselves that the applicant’s relevant           rights of defence of the applicant and infringed several
      market share is below 10 %, although Tokai Carbon Co.,              principles of Community law, such as the principle of pro-
      Ltd. is put in the category of firms who have a market              portionality, equal treatment and legal certainty.
      share between 10 %-20 %.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the Commission was wrong to set
—     The Commission misapplied the Leniency Notice by not                the starting point for the calculation of the applicant’s fine
      granting Tokai a fine reduction account of leniency under           solely by reference to its world-wide turnover and market
      Section C, as the applicant was the first to submit decisive        share. The applicant claims that the Commission has violated
      evidence with regard to the time periods during which               the rights of defence as the statement of objections indicated
      UCAR International Inc.was not a participant in the                 that the cartel outside the EEA was outside of its scope and
      cartel.                                                             failed to highlight the significance which the Commission
                                                                          would attribute to the world-wide product turnover and
                                                                          market share in determining the starting point for the fine.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the infringement had no world-
                                                                          wide scope and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in
                                                                          relying on this factor to determine the starting point of the
                                                                          calculation of the fine.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/35
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission failed               The applicant relies on the following:
to take into account the applicant’s smaller total size in relation
to that of the other participants in the infringement while                —     error of law in the application of Article 87 of the EC
determining the starting point for the calculation of the fine.                  Treaty: the measure at issue is of general scope and does
According to the applicant, the Commission should have                           not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87
applied a downward adjustment for the applicant.                                 of the EC Treaty. In any event, the Commission has not
                                                                                demonstrated that the criterion as to effect on trade
The applicant finally claims that its cooperation with the                       between Member States has been met;
investigation qualified for a reduction of 50 % rather than
35 %. The applicant states that it voluntarily provided the                —     error in the facts set out in the decision: the undertakings
Commission with evidence showing that the infringement                           in the financial sector are affected, as are the undertakings
started earlier than known to the Commission.                                    in the remaining business sectors, by the structural
                                                                                disadvantages acknowledged in the contested decision;
                                                                           —     breach of an essential procedural requirement in that the
                                                                                statement of reasons is inadequate;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of equality; and
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Banco Comercial
dos Açores, SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                          (Case T-75/03)
                         (2003/C 112/67)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Feralpi Siderurgica
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                                 ties
European Communities on 28 February 2003 by the Banco
Comercial dos Açores, SA, whose registered office is in Edifício
BCA, Rua Dr. José Bruno Tavares Carreiro, Ponta Delgada,                                             (Case T-77/03)
Azores, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Margarida
Rosado da Fonseca, lawyers.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/68)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the last part of Article 1, together with Articles 2,
      3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 11 Decem-
      ber 2002 ‘on the part of the scheme adapting the
      national tax system to the specific characteristics of the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      autonomous region of the Azores with regard to the tax               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      reductions’ to the extent that those provisions refer                European Communities on 4 March 2003 by the above
      to undertakings which pursue the financial activities                applicant, represented by Prof. G. M. Roberti, A. Franchi and
      provided for in Section J (Codes 65, 66 and 67) of the               I. Perego, lawyers,
      Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the
      European Community — NACE REV1.1);
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the entire costs.
                                                                           —     annul wholly or in part the Commission Decision of
                                                                                17 December 2002 on a proceeding pursuant to Article 6
                                                                                of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — concrete
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  reinforcing bars);
The contested decision declares compatible with the common                 —     cancel or reduce the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2
market the aid granted in the form of tax reductions under the                   of that decision;
tax system of the Azores, but not as regards the financial
services.                                                                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-498/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Antonella Pedone v N (Preliminary references — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement of link with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/13

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Antonella Pedone v N
   (Case C-498/12) (1)

   (Preliminary references - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement of link with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 108/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antonella Pedone

      Defendant: N

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that consultancy fees are to be reduced by half where the client has been granted legal aid

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-709/14: Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/32

         Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council
   (Case T-709/14)
   (2014/C 448/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the Applicant; and

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was ‘responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria’, or a person ‘benefiting from or supporting the regime’, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against it, as required by the case law of the Court.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council. The Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. The interference with the applicant extends beyond a financial impact, and has also resulted in damage to its reputation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant has in fact provided ‘support to the Syrian regime’ and to have benefited from the regime.


title: Case C-402/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of that Court of 26 September 2003 in the case of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and Michael Due Nielsen

text:
C 304/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    —    infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity
                                                                                and inadequate statement of reasons;
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 (1) of                     —    infringement of the principle of legitimate expec-
      27 June 2003, published in the Official Journal of the                        tations; inconsistency.
      European Union L 160 of 28 June 2003, p. 48, amending
      Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (2) as regards the rules of           C.    Misuse of powers
      eligibility for co-financing by the Structural Funds for
      procedural irregularities, as set out at points 52 to 59 of        (1) OJ 2003 L 160 of 28.06.2003, p. 3.
      Section I of the application;                                      (2) OJ 2000 L 242 of 27.09.2000, p. 39.
                                                                         (3) OJ 1999 L 161 of 26.06.1999, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, annul Article 2(a) in so far as it refers
      to Rule 1, points 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3 and Rule 1, points 1.2,
      2.1 and 2.3 of the annex on the basis of the pleas on the
      merits as set out at points 60 to 93 of Section II and
      points 94 to 102 of Section III of the application;                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                         by order of that Court of 26 September 2003 in the case
                                                                         of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka
—     annul all related and ancillary measures;                          Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and Michael
                                                                                Due Nielsen
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                                         (Case C-402/03)
      pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (Western Regional Court) of 26 September 2003, received at
                                                                         the Court Registry on 29 September 2003, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/
The applicant submits that Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003                  S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and
should be annulled on the following grounds:                             Michael Due Nielsen on the following questions:
A.    Grounds relating to the infringement of the ‘committee             Question 1
      procedure’ laid down by Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1260/1999 ‘the general regulation’:
                                                                         Does Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the
                                                                         approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
      —     infringement of essential procedural requirement             provisions of the Member States concerning liability for
            (Article 230 EC); infringement of Article 47(3) of           defective products (1) preclude a statutory system under which
            the general regulation (committees); failure to satisfy      an intermediary bears unlimited responsibility for the pro-
            the requirements for the adoption of the regulation.         ducer’s liability under the Directive?
B.    Pleas on the merits                                                Question 2
                                                                         Does the abovementioned Council Directive preclude a system
      —     infringement of essential procedural requirements:           under which the intermediary bears, in accordance with case-
            insufficient and inconsistent statement of reasons;          law, unlimited responsibility for the producer’s fault-based
                                                                         liability established in case-law in respect of liability for
                                                                         defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to
      —     infringement of Article 9(j) of Regulation (EC) No           consumers’ property?
            1260/1999 (3): definition of operation;
                                                                         Question 3
      —     further infringement of Article 9 and of Articles 8
            and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999;                      With reference to:
                                                                         1.    The Council of Ministers minutes in BEUC-News, Legal
      —     infringement of the principle of sound financial                   Supplement 12 November/December 1985, pages 20
            management;                                                        and 21, paragraph 2 of which states:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/11
      Statements on Articles 3 and 12: With regard to the                 (c)   the intermediary has a right of contribution or recourse
      interpretation of Articles 2 and 10, the Council and the                  against the producer (Paragraph 11(3) of the Danish law
      Commission are in agreement that there is nothing to                      on liability for defective products)?
      prevent individual Member States from laying down in
      their national legislation rules regarding liability for
      intermediaries, since intermediary liability is not covered         Question 5
      by the Directive. There is further agreement that under
      the Directive the Member States may determine rules on
      the final mutual apportionment of liability among several           Does the Directive (Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
      liable producers (see Article 3) and intermediaries; and            1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                          liability for defective products) preclude a Member State from
2.    Article 13 of the Directive, which provides that:                   maintaining a non-statutory, but case-law-based, rule, which
                                                                          existed before the Directive on liability for defective products,
      ‘This Directive shall not affect any rights which an injured        relating to liability for defective products under which the
      person may have according to the rules of the law of                intermediary — without himself being the producer or treated
      contractual or non-contractual liability or a special liab-         as a producer under Article 3 of the Directive — is responsible
      ility system existing at the moment when this Directive is          for:
      notified’,
                                                                          —     the producer’s liability for defective products under the
does the Directive preclude a Member State from laying down                     Directive on liability for defective products,
legal rules on intermediary liability for defective products
where the intermediary is, as occurred in [Paragraph 3(1)] of             —     the producer’s fault-based liability established in case-law
the Danish law on liability for defective products, defined as                  in respect of liability for defective products resulting in
any person who, in the course of his business, puts a product                   personal injury or damage to consumers’ property,
into circulation without being deemed to be the producer
under the definition thereof in Article 3 of the Directive on             where the case-law-based rule concerned requires that:
liability for defective products?
                                                                          (a)   the intermediary be defined as any person who, in the
                                                                                course of his business, puts a product into circulation
                                                                                without being deemed to be the producer ([Para-
                                                                                graph 3(3)] of the Danish law on liability for defective
Question 4                                                                      products);
                                                                          (b) the producer can be held liable and the intermediary
Does the Directive (Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July                     therefore does not bear responsibility where the producer
1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and                          is not held liable (Paragraph 10 of the Danish law on
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning                       liability for defective products);
liability for defective products) preclude a Member State from
laying down a legal rule relating to liability for defective              (c)   the intermediary has a right of contribution or recourse
products, under which the intermediary — without himself                        against the producer (Paragraph 11(3) of the Danish law
being the producer or treated as a producer under Article 3 of                  on liability for defective products)?
the Directive — is responsible for:
                                                                          (1) OJ L 210 of 7.8.1985, p. 29.
—     the producer’s liability for defective products under the
      Directive,
—     the producer’s fault based-liability established in case-law
      in respect of liability for defective products resulting in
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
      personal injury or damage to consumers’ property,
                                                                          hof by order of that Court of 22 July 2003 in the case of
                                                                                Egon Schempp against Finanzamt München V
where the legal rule in question requires that:                                                     (Case C-403/03)
(a)   the intermediary be defined as any person who, in the                                         (2003/C 304/16)
      course of his business, puts a product into circulation
      without being deemed to be the producer ([Paragraph
      3(3)] of the Danish law on liability for defective products);       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(b) the producer can be held liable and the intermediary                  (Federal Finance Court) of 22 July 2003, received at the Court
      therefore does not bear responsibility where the producer           Registry on 29 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
      is not held liable (Paragraph 10 of the Danish law on               the case of Egon Schempp against Finanzamt München V on
      liability for defective products);                                  the following questions:


title: Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice

text:
12.8.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of                    2.     In addition, as regards the period from 15 July 2000 to
                              Justice                                  6 October 2000, the list on the basis of which the composition
                                                                       of the Sixth Chamber is determined, as set out in point 4 of
                        (2000/C 233/01)                                the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 6 October
                                                                       1999 (1), has been amended as follows:
Following her appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by decision of the Governments                   Sixth Chamber
of the Member States of the European Communities of 22 June
2000 (1), Ms Ninon Colneric took her oath before the Court                (President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida)
on 14 July 2000.
                                                                          Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken, Mr Schintgen,
                                                                          Mr Skouris, and Ms Colneric, Judges.
(1) OJ L 164 of 5.7.2000, p. 16.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 1.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          11 July 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                        (2000/C 233/02)
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting on 11 July 2000:                in Case C-56/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Gascogne Limousin
                                                                       Viandes SA v Office national interprofessionnel des
Assignment of Judge Colneric                                                 viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Ofival) (1)
Ms Colneric is assigned to the Second and Sixth Chambers.              (Beef and veal — Premium for early marketing of calves —
                                                                       Grant thereof dependent on average carcase weight of calves
                                                                       slaughtered in each Member State during 1995 — Validity
Composition of the Sixth Chamber                                       under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following amend-
                                                                                ment, Article 34(2) EC)
1.    The composition of the Sixth Chamber for the period
from 15 July 2000 to 6 October 2000 has been determined as                                       (2000/C 233/03)
follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
   Sixth Chamber
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
   Mr Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                                      in the European Court Reports)
   Mr Schintgen, Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr Skouris,                In Case C-56/99: Reference to the Court under Article 177
   Ms Macken and Ms Colneric, Judges.                                  (now Article 234 EC) of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal


title: Case T-2/11: Action brought on 4 January 2011 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/20

         Action brought on 4 January 2011 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-2/11)
   2011/C 89/42
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7555 of 4 November 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), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the part that applies to Portugal an individual financial correction to the POSEI measure, in the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007, in the total amount of EUR 743 251,25.

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on four pleas in law: infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006; (1) error in the interpretation of recital 28 in the preamble to Regulation No 43/2003; (2) infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999; (3) breach of the principles of equality and proportionality.
   By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 1 of Regulation No 885/2006 insofar as it did not indicate any results of checks or any observations relating to the years 2005 and 2006, thereby preventing the Portuguese authorities from proving that its conclusions were inaccurate in relation to those years, or from correcting any deficiencies so as to comply with the Community rules and, therefore, denying them the benefit of the procedural guarantee granted to the Member States under that provision.
   By its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission misinterpreted recital 28 in the preamble to Regulation No 43/2003, in so far as it considered that the monitoring carried out by the Portuguese authorities was insufficient in the light of EU standards, given the level of irregularities noted, without explaining at any time, however, to what extent or for what reason this monitoring should have been different or more extensive while, at the same time, it considered this monitoring to be sufficient for the purposes of calculating the financial correction.
   It adds that the Commission also infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, under which the Commission is to decide on the expenditure to be excluded from the Community financing where it finds that expenditure has not been effected in compliance with Community rules, by excluding from Community financing the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic, having found, wrongly, that this had not been effected in compliance with those rules.
   By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 in that, during the clearance of the EAGGF-Guarantee accounts, it completely ignored the guidelines set out in Working Paper VI/5330/97 of 23.12.1997, which the Commission established and adopted for the purposes of applying that provision, particularly in relation to the calculation of the financial corrections.
   Finally, the applicant claims that, owing also to the failure to observe the above-mentioned guidelines, the Commission breached the principles of equality and proportionality too. Thus, it breached the principle of equality in that it did not treat the situation of the Portuguese Republic in the same way as it treated other equal situations, in particular, by applying a financial correction rate of 5 %, in accordance with those guidelines. It breached the principle of proportionality in that, precisely because it failed to observe those guidelines, the Commission applied much higher correction rates, that is, between 44,32 % and 90,48 %, which was explained on the basis of the financial loss at issue.
   By that same line of reasoning, the Commission also infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, according to which ‘The Commission shall evaluate the amounts to be excluded having regard in particular to the degree of non-compliance found. The Commission shall take into account the nature and gravity of the infringement and the financial loss suffered by the Community’.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001 as regards aid for the local production of crop products in the outermost regions of the European Union

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-127/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Willi Burstein v. Freistaat Bayern (Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty)

text:
21.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 358/5
by failing to establish the codes of good agricultural               certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262,
practice and to notify the Commission thereof, the                   27.9.1976, p. 201), as amended by Council Directive
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under          91/173/EEC (OJ L 85, 5.4.1991, p. 34), and of
Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of                  Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                 Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural               Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth              (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G.                Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-               which it has ruled:
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it:
                                                                     The limit value established in the first sentence of point 23
                                                                     of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July
1. Declares that by failing to designate the zones                   1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     considered to be vulnerable and to notify the                   administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
     Commission of those designations and by failing to              restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
     establish the codes of good agricultural practice for           substances and preparations, as amended by Council
     the autonomous communities other than Andalucia,                Directive 91/173/EEC of 21 March 1991, is applicable to
     Cantabria, Madrid, Murcia, Navarre and Valencia                 PCP, its salts and esters and to preparations produced
     and to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom               from those substances, but not to products treated with
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under             those substances or preparations.
     Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
     waters against pollution caused by nitrates from                (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
     agricultural sources;
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 23 September 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 (reference for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Roma): Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop. a.r.l.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Conata) (C-332/96), Agrindustria Srl (C-333/96) v.
                                                                     Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                        (AIMA) (1)
                      of 1 October 1998
                                                                     (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Ð Manifestly
in Case C-127/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  identical question)
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Willi
                                                                                (98/C 358/11)
                Burstein v. Freistaat Bayern (1)
              (Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (98/C 358/10)
               (Language of the case: German)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   In Joined Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96: reference to the
                                                                     Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
                                                                     Pretura Circondariale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary
In Case C-127/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht             between Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop. a.r.l.
Regensburg (Bavarian Administrative Court) (Germany),                (Conata) (C-332/96) and Agrindustria Srl (C-333/96) and
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
that court between Willi Burstein and Freistaat Bayern Ð             (AIMA) on the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of             No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws,                       agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              tobacco sector (OJ L 317, 8.12.1993, p. 30) Ð the Court,
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of          composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,


title: Case T-376/03: Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx against Council of the European Union

text:
24.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal as inad-            Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal:                       missible as a result of a failure
                              to comply with the time-limit
                              prescribed for lodging appeals.
                                                                          Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
                                                                          were required to have a perfect command of one of the
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement of Article 6 of          official languages of the European Communities, a very good
                                    the European Convention on            knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
                                    Human Rights in that notifi-          knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
                                    cation by fax does not satisfy        candidates choosing French or English as the language of
                                    the requirement for security          which they had a perfect command were required to show
                                    of notification in proceed-           evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
                                    ings.                                 languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
                                                                          language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
                              —     in the alternative, infringe-         provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
                                    ment of Rules 55, 61 and 65           and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candi-
                                    of Commission Regulation              dates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
                                    No 2868/95 and of                     equal treatment and also of subparagraph f of the first
                                    Article 59 of Regulation              paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
                                    No 40/94.                             plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
                                                                          candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
                                                                          the Secretariat General of the Council, in breach of the
                                                                          competition notice, which provided for an account of the
                                                                          activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
                                                                          refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
                                                                          his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                          Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
                                                                          reasons and of the principles of good management and good
                                                                          administration.
Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-
       drickx against Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-376/03)
                         (2004/C 21/81)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-377/03)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,                                               (2004/C 21/82)
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for                  European Communities on 17 November 2003 by ATI
      written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;            Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represen-
                                                                          ted by Chantal Silvia Moreau, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
      of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                          Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case F-54/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2012 — BG v European Ombudsman (Civil service — Disciplinary measure — Disciplinary sanction — Removal from post — Existence of a preliminary investigation before the national criminal courts at the time of adoption of the decision to remove the applicant from her post — Equal treatment for men and women — Prohibition of the dismissal of a pregnant worker during the period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/29

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2012 — BG v European Ombudsman
   (Case F-54/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Disciplinary measure - Disciplinary sanction - Removal from post - Existence of a preliminary investigation before the national criminal courts at the time of adoption of the decision to remove the applicant from her post - Equal treatment for men and women - Prohibition of the dismissal of a pregnant worker during the period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of maternity leave)
   2013/C 46/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: J. Sant’Anna, Agent, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision to apply to the applicant the disciplinary measure of dismissal without loss of pension rights. Consequently, a claim, primarily, to restore the applicant to her post and, in the alternative, to grant her a sum corresponding to the remuneration which she would have received between the date of effect of the dismissal and the date at which she will reach retirement age. In any event, the grant of a sum to the applicant in respect of the non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action brought by BG;

               2.

               Orders BG to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Ombudsman.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011, p. 30.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/66

         Removal from the register of Case T-296/99 (1)

   (2004/C 94/166)

      (Language of the Case: Dutch)

   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-296/99: Driessen Oosterbeek B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.


title: Case C-324/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Coditel Brabant SPRL v Commune d'Uccle, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Public procurement — Tendering procedures — Public service concessions — Concession for the operation of a municipal cable television network — Award by a municipality to an inter-municipal cooperative society — Obligation of transparency — Conditions — Whether the control exercised by the concession-granting authority over the concessionaire is similar to that exercised over its own departments)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Coditel Brabant SPRL v Commune d'Uccle, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-324/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Tendering procedures - Public service concessions - Concession for the operation of a municipal cable television network - Award by a municipality to an inter-municipal cooperative society - Obligation of transparency - Conditions - Whether the control exercised by the concession-granting authority over the concessionaire is similar to that exercised over its own departments)
   (2009/C 6/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coditel Brabant SPRL

      Defendant: Commune d'Uccle, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Third party: Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutélé)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Interpretation of the fundamental principles of primary Community law (principles of non-discrimination and transparency) and of the exceptions to those principles in the area of public service concessions — Concession relating to the operation of a municipal television network — Need for competitive tendering except in those cases where the awarding authority exercises, over the concessionaire, a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and where the concessionaire performs the major part of its activities with the authority which controls it
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and the concomitant obligation of transparency do not preclude a public authority from awarding, without calling for competition, a public service concession to an inter-municipal cooperative society of which all the members are public authorities, where those public authorities exercise over that cooperative society control similar to that exercised over their own departments and where that society carries out the essential part of its activities with those public authorities;

               2.

               Subject to verification of the facts by the referring court as regards the degree of independence enjoyed by the inter-municipal cooperative society in question, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, where decisions regarding the activities of an inter-municipal cooperative society owned exclusively by public authorities are taken by bodies, created under the statutes of that society, which are composed of representatives of the affiliated public authorities, the control exercised over those decisions by the public authorities may be regarded as enabling those authorities to exercise over the cooperative society control similar to that exercised over their own departments;

               3.

               Where a public authority joins an inter-communal cooperative of which all the members are public authorities in order to transfer to that cooperative society the management of a public service, it is possible, in order for the control which those member authorities exercise over the cooperative to be regarded as similar to that which they exercise over their own departments, for it to be exercised jointly by those authorities, decisions being taken by a majority, as the case may be.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.