title: Case T-65/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2012 by Guido Strack against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/27

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2012 by Guido Strack against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission
   (Case T-65/12 P)
   2012/C 118/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside in its entirety the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV;

               —

               order the defendant, pursuant to the form of order applied for under paragraph 1 of Section A.4 of his written submission of 21 February 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV, the reasoning being stated in paragraphs 78 to 85 of that written submission, to pay damages to the applicant of at least EUR 2 500 on account of the excessive duration of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 6 ECHR;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the entire costs of the present appeal proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

               1.

               First ground, alleging infringement of the right of access to his lawful judge, Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and Article 4(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
               The appellant argues in this connection that the case was first assigned to another chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal and that there was no legal basis for the second assignment undertaken thereafter.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal
               The appellant argues in this connection that no separate referral order was possible with regard to the form of order he sought in the main proceedings not in the application but only in a later written submission because it was not independent or separable.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal
               The appellant also claims that the legal dispute derives from his employment relationship, meaning that according to Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter
               The appellant claims finally that by its method of proceeding the Civil Service Tribunal infringed his right to be heard and the principle of adversary proceedings and treated him unfairly.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2002 in Case C-273/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari): Walter Ferro v Giovanni Santoro (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents — Applicability to brokers)

text:
C 323/24                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann                   A directive may not, of itself, impose obligations on a private
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  individual and may not therefore be relied on as such against such a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in                        person.
which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,       (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                   in Case C-273/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunale di Bari): Walter Ferro v Giovanni Santoro (1)
                          of 24 October 2002
in Case C-233/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Council
the Giudice di pace di Palermo): Riunione Adriatica di                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
             Securtà SpA (RAS) v Dario Lo Bue (1)                             nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                                employed commercial agents — Applicability to brokers)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directives 73/
239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premium rates                                                    (2002/C 323/34)
— Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual)
                             (2002/C 323/33)                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-233/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    In Case C-273/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Giudice di pace di Palermo (Italy) for a preliminary                EC from the Triunale di Bari (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   the proceedings pending before that court between Walter
Riunione Adriatica di Securtà SpA (RAS) and Dario Lo Bue, on                  Ferro and Giovanni Santoro — on the interpretation of
the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the First Council Directive             Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws,                       coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the                     employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the
taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other               Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), in its version                     President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
resulting from Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992                    M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order in which it has
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance             ruled:
and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), and of
Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49, the Court (Third                       The provisions of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                     1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                     to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after                that they do not apply to national legislation which makes the
informing the national court that the Court proposes to give                  entitlement of brokers to remuneration conditional upon the name of
its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of its              the broker being entered in a register established for that purpose.
Rules of Procedure, after inviting the interested parties referred
to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
submit any observations they might have in that regard, has
made an order on 24 October 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:


title: Case F-70/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission
   (Case F-70/14) (1)

   (2016/C 371/44)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3/11/2014, p. 28.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 3 December 1996 in Case C-268/94 Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union (Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of India - Development cooperation - Respect for human rights and democratic principles - Cooperation in the fields of energy, tourism, culture, drug abuse control and protection of intellectual property - Competence of the Community - Legal basis)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN [                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M.
                     of 3 December 1996                               Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H.
                                                                      von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
in Case C-268/94 Portuguese Republic v. Council of the                3 December 1996 in which it :
                     European Union ( ! )
(Cooperation Agreement between the European                           1 . dismisses the application;
Community and the Republic of India — Development
cooperation — Respect for human rights and democratic
principles — Cooperation in the fields of energy, tourism,            2 . orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;
culture, drug abuse control and protection of intellectual
property — Competence of the Community — Legal                        3 . orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic
                              basis)                                       Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                         ( 97/C 54/01 )                                    Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities to bear their own costs.
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      (■) OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In case C-268/94: Portuguese Republic ( Agents : Joao
Mota de Campos, Luis Fernandes and Maria Luisa                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Duarte, supported by the Hellenic Republic ( Agents :                                      of 12 December 1996
Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Georgios Karipsiadis ) v.
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jorge Monteiro               in Case C-302/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Antonio Tanca ), supported by the Kingdom of                      the High Court of Justice ( Queen's Bench Division )): The
Denmark ( Agent: Peter Biering), the United Kingdom of                Queen v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey                             parte: British Telecommunications pic (')
Nicoll ) and by the Commission of the European
                                                                      (Telecommunications — Directive on open network
Communities ( Agents: Claire Bury and Ana Maria Alves                 provision — Special or exclusive rights — Directive on
Vieira ) — application for annulment of Council Decision               leased lines — Provision of a minimum set of leased lines)
94/578/EC of 18 July 1994 concerning the conclusion of
the Cooperation Agreement between the European                                                    ( 97/C 54/02 )
Community and the Republic of India on partnership and
development ( OJ No L 223 , 27. 8 . 1994, p. 23 ) — the                              (Language of the case: English)
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.         In Case C-302/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                      of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice ( Queen's


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2002 in Case C-328/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 1999/28/EC)

text:
7.12.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 305/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 October 2002                                                           of 15 October 2002
                                                                              in Case C-328/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-327/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland ( 1)
                             ties v Ireland ( 1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure                               to implement Directive 1999/28/EC)
                to implement Directive 98/20/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/10)
                            (2002/C 305/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-328/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-327/01, Commission of the European Communities                      (Agent: M. Huttunen) v Ireland (Agents: D.J. O’Hagan and
(Agent: M. Huttunen) v Ireland (Agents: D.J. O’Hagan and                      C. O’Rourke): Application for a declaration that, by failing
C. O’Rourke): Application for a declaration that, by failing                  to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                   necessary to comply with Commission Directive 1999/28/EC
necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/20/EC of                        of 21 April 1999 amending the Annex to Council Directive
30 March 1998 amending Directive 92/14/EEC on the limi-                       92/14/EEC on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes
tation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II,                     covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the
Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on                          Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition
International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988) (OJ 1988                  (1988) (OJ 1999 L 118, p. 53) or, in any event, by failing to
L 107, p. 4) or, in any event, by failing to inform the                       inform the Commission of the adoption of those measures,
Commission of the adoption of those measures, Ireland has                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court              the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
(Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                  (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
President of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                 J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 2002,
given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:                             in which it:
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
                                                                                time-limit, the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
      time-limit, the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive 1999/28/EC
      necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/20/EC of
                                                                                of 21 April 1999 amending the Annex to Council Directive
      30 March 1998 amending Directive 92/14/EEC on the
                                                                                92/14/EEC on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes
      limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II,
                                                                                covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the
      Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on
                                                                                Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition
      International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988), Ireland
                                                                                (1988), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                directive;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                        2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Council of the European Union (Case C-206/97)

text:
No C 212/24          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      — Breach of the general criteria for the application of
                                                                             the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ): by approving
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements                          measures of indeterminate duration whose detailed
    — Infringement of Articles 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC                  rules and conditions for implementation are not
        Treaty: by undertaking long and complex                              set out in a transparent manner, the Commission
        negotiations with the French authorities — lasting                   breached the general criteria for the application of
        nearly 16 months from the date of notification —                     the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ), in particular
        in the context of the preliminary stage provided                     the criterion that the aid should be transparent and
        for in Article 93 ( 3 ), the Commission undermined                   the criterion that aid for restructuring should be
        the system of procedural rules established by that                   temporary and progressively reduced.
        provision . The Commission brought forward into
        that preliminary stage — which does not provide
        the procedural guarantees for either the other
        Member States or third parties concerned which
        flow from the opening of the Article 93 ( 2 )
        procedure — the detailed examination of the
        notified measures which should be carried out in             Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        the framework of the aforementioned procedure .                  Sweden against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-206/97
        Moreover, the Commission infringed the
        procedural rights of the AEVP — Associafao de                                         ( 97/C 212/45 )
        Empresas de Vinho de Porto, in its capacity as a
        third party submitting a complaint, inasmuch as it
        completely sidetracked the right of that body to             An action against the Council of the European Union was
        participate in the administrative procedure. Having          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        conducted extensive negotiations with the French             Communities on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        authorities in the preliminary stage, the                    Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Under-Secretary
        Commission was under an obligation to inform                 for Legal Affairs, with an address for service in
        AEVP of the essential elements of the notified
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 rue H. Heine,
        measures and of the reservations made by the                 Luxembourg.
        Commission with regard to those measures, and to
        have asked AEVP to submit any observations it
        considered appropriate .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
    — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
        contested measure does not set out adequately the            1 . pursuant to Article 173 , declare TAC Regulation (EC )
         factual or legal reasons which led to the adoption               No 390/97 H invalid to the extent that the Regulation
         of the Decision .
                                                                          concerns the allocation of cod in Zone Illb, c, d,
— Infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law
    relating to its application                                           and
    — Infringement of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in
         conjunction with Article 95 thereof: the
         Commission could not have been unaware — since              2 . order the Council to pay Sweden's costs.
         the matter was expressly raised by the third party
         submitting a complaint — of the terms of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         domestic tax legislation relating to both the
         products benefiting from the approved aid and the
         competing products . While that French legislation          Article 121 ( 1 ) of the Act concerning the conditions of
         is not formally discriminatory, it cannot be denied          accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
         that its effect is, in substance, discriminatory.            Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
         Thus, natural sweet wines ( 92% of which are                to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
         produced in France ) are taxed at a rate of FF 350,          in the wording laid down in Council Decision 95/1/EC,
         whereas the remaining liqueur wines ( 81% of                 Euratom, ECSC (2 ) is to be set aside :
         which are imported from other Member States ) are
         taxed at the rate of FF 1 400 per hectolitre of the
         final product ( that is to say, four times as much ).        As regards 1997, a catch of 112 452 tonnes of cod was
         By approving a system of aid of indeterminate                available to the Community for fish in Community waters
          duration, intended to respond to the interests of           in Zone Illb, c, d. In accordance with Article 121 ( 1 ) of
          the French liqueur wine producers excluded from             the Act of Accession, Sweden was to be allocated 39 999
         the more advantageous tax category, the                      tonnes ( 0,35037 x 50 000 tonnes + 0,4 x 62 452 tonnes -
          Commission simply established a system whereby              2 500 tonnes ) of that catch. Account was taken in this
          all French-produced liqueur wines benefit from the          regard of the fact that 2 500 tonnes of Sweden's quota
          greatest competitive advantages over similar                during 1997 was to be transferred to other Member States
          products originating in or coming from other                in accordance with the agreement concluded in connection
          Member States .                                             with the signing of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7. 97                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/25
was allocated, by Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97, 38 886                              Removal from the register of C-40/95 (')
tonnes, which is 1 139 tonnes less than the quantity                                                 ( 97/C 212/46 )
provided for by the Act of Accession.
                                                                         By order of 3 February 1997 the President of the Court of
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC ) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the     removal from the register of Case C-40/95 ( reference for a
      total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under      preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,
      which they may be fished ( OJ No L 66, 6. 3 . 1997, p. 1 ).        London ): Conoco Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and
( 2 ) OJNoL 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 1 .                                   Excise .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                             OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Decisions adopted by the Court of First Instance at its                       the President of the Court of First Instance designates
                 plenary conference on 5 June 1997                            the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
                             ( 97/C 212/47)                                   the case, will be in the reverse order of precedence of
                                                                              those Judges based, in accordance with Article 6 of the
                                                                              Rules of Procedure, on their seniority in office, save
 1 . Composition of the First Chamber, Extended                               where the Judge thus designated is the Judge
        Composition, of the Second Chamber and of the                         Rapporteur. In the latter case, the Judge immediately
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition —                                senior to him is to be designated .
        Assignment of Judges to Chambers
        In the light of the decision of the Governments of the
        Member States of 29 May 1997 appointing Karl Joerg
        Pirrung a Member of the Court of First Instance
        following the death of Judge Heinrich Kirschner, the
        Court of First Instance decided at its plenary
        conference on 5 June 1997, in accordance with                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 10 of its Rules of Procedure, to modify the                                        (Fourth Chamber)
        composition of its Chambers, as decided on                                                  of 15 May 1997
        12 September 1996 ( OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 , p. 10 ).
                                                                          in Case T-273/94: N v. Commission of the European
        For the period from 11 June 1997 to 30 September                                            Communities ( ] )
        1997, Judge Pirrung is assigned to the First Chamber,             (Officials — Duty to act in good faith — Official
        Extended Composition, the Second Chamber and the                  suspected of conduct inconsistent with the dignity of his
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition .                            office — Official's cooperation in good faith with the
                                                                          investigation — Lacking — Disciplinary proceedings —
        In cases where another Judge has been designated by                                       Removal from post)
        the President of the Court of First Instance, pursuant
        to Article 32 ( 3 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to                                              ( 97/C 212/48 )
        complete those Chambers in place of Judge Kirschner
         and the written procedure has been completed and a                               (Language of the case: French)
         hearing in the oral procedure has been held or fixed
         before 11 June 1996 , those Chambers shall continue              In Case T-273/94: N, a former official of the Commission
         to sit with that composition for the purposes of the              of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
         oral procedure, deliberation and judgment.                        represented by Xavier Magnee, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
   2 . Plenary session                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim v. Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia,
         At is plenary conference on 5 June 1997, the Court of             Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) —
         First Instance decided, in accordance with the second             application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
         subparagraph of Article 32 ( 1 ) of its Rules of                  4 October 1993 removing the applicant from his post, and
         Procedure, that where, following the designation of an            a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
         Advocate-General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules              Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
         of Procedure , there is an even number of Judges of the           and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
          Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the          Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 May 1997, the operative
          rota established in advance, in accordance with which            part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-128/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi v Commission
   (Case T-128/04) (1)

   (2008/C 197/64)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-441/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/26

         Action brought on 31 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency
   (Case T-441/15)
   (2015/C 328/24)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency (ΕMA) which was notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail of 04/06/2015 from the IT Resource Manager, whereby the EMA rejected two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in relation to Request Form for Services No SC001 in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement;·

               —

               order the EMA to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts under Request Form for Services No SC001, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at eight thousand euros (EUR 8  000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate, and

               —

               order the EMA to pay all the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, because it is in breach of the principle of proportionality which governs public procurement. More specifically, the contested decision rejected the applicants’ candidates due to the absence of certification in the PRINCE2 methodology, a criterion which is neither appropriate nor necessary and is therefore in breach of the principle of proportionality in public procurement.
   Accordingly, the EMA committed a clear infringement of a specific rule of law (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation) which confers rights on individuals, and caused harm to the applicants, since they lost the opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts, and consequently the conditions for the payment of compensation to the applicants are satisfied.


title: Case C-495/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Obligation to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-495/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment)
   2010/C 11/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth and H. Walker, Agents, and by J. Maurici, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Requirement to give reasons for a decision not to make a project subject to an assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to make applications for Review of Mineral Planning lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-53/12: Action brought on 12 February 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte v Council

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/29

         Action brought on 12 February 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte v Council
   (Case T-53/12)
   2012/C 89/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: S. Drury, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2)
                  ab initio and with immediate effect insofar as it concerns applicant’s inclusion in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by stating that the applicant is an Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines front company, owned or controlled by the latter, the defendant has manifestly misstated the facts and committed a manifest error in the application of Article 16 (2) (d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 by including the applicant in Annex VIII to the said Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed its obligations to give reasons contained in Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 (3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to state reasons has resulted in the infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to an effective judicial review.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)


title: Case T-169/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. Srl v OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B — Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI — Relative ground for refusal — Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. Srl v OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)
   (Case T-169/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B - Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 098/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 95/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Benelli Q.J. Srl and Demharter GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Action brought on 20 June 1997 by BP Chemicals Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-184/97)

text:
No C 252/36           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 8 . 97
Regulations of officials, the household grant received by             Instance of the European Communities on 20 June 1997
their husbands from the family allowances to which they               by BP Chemicals Limited, represented by James Flynn,
were entitled. In July 1996 they were informed that, in               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court of                 Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
First Instance on 11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95 Pavan v.
Parliament, and having considered the conditions
governing the award of the grant in question, the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration had concluded that the grant could no
longer be regarded as an allowance of like nature to the
household allowance provided for in Article 1 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it had                    — annul the Commission Decision No 941/96 of 28 April
therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct that                 1997 approving State aid; granted by France,
grant from the household allowance paid to the
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the
defendant on the ground that the applicants had not
challenged the acts adversely affecting them — namely, in
the present case, the remuneration statements in which the            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contested    deductions      had  been   made — within      the
prescribed period.
                                                                      By the present application, the applicant seeks annulment
The applicants state, first, that they are seeking                    of the decision approving a French aid scheme, which
compensation for loss arising from fault on the part of the           consists essentially of a tax exemption for producers of
administration and not annulment of an act adversely                  certain biofuels designed to encourage them to purchase
affecting them, so that their claim falls within Article 179          certain inputs of agricultural origin ( the 1997 Scheme ).
of the EC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff
Regulations. They therefore consider that the procedure
followed by them is in accordance with the Staff
Regulations and with case-law and that their action is                The applicant concentrates in this application on the
admissible .                                                          contested decision as it affects ethyl tertiary butyl ether
                                                                      ( ETBE ) production and the ethanol market. It is submitted
As regards the substance of the case, the applicants                  in this regard that the contested decision should be
maintain that the administration is bound, under                      annulled on three principal grounds:
Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 , 2
and 3 of Annex VII thereto, to undertake an examination
of the allowances declared by its officials, with a view to           First, the Commission has exceeded its margin of
establishing the nature thereof in the light of the rule              discretion in three respects . It has authorized an aid
against overlapping benefits, and that it does not enjoy              without requiring any financial limit or restrictions on
any discretion when carrying out that examination. The                volumes of production or the life of the 1997 Scheme. It
fact that it wrongly characterized the household grant                has failed to make any assessment of the impact of the
paid to Luxembourg bank employees as being of like                    Scheme on the ethanol market and has therefore failed to
nature to the household allowance paid to officials                   satisfy itself that trading conditions will not be adversely
therefore constitutes, in the applicants' view, a service            affected to an extent contrary to the common interest as
related fault. They infer from this that the administration           Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) requires. The environmental benefits
is bound to reimburse the sums wrongly deducted as from               claimed for the Scheme are nugatory at best and could be
the date of adoption of the first decision, inasmuch as,              secured by far less expensive and less discriminatory
where a service-related fault, loss and a causal link are             measures .
established, Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty and the
relevant case-law require the loss caused to be made good
in its entirety.
                                                                      Second, the Commission has misapplied Council Directive
                                                                      92/81/EEC concerning excise duty for mineral oils ( OJ No
                                                                      L 316, 31 . 10. 1992, p. 12 ). The only basis on which the
                                                                      1997 Scheme could qualify for a derogation from the
                                                                      requirement to levy excise duty which that Directive
Action brought on 20 June 1997 by BP Chemicals Limited                imposes is by a unanimous Council decision under
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Article 8 ( 4 ) thereof. The suggestion that the 1997 Scheme
                                                                      can benefit for the derogation for pilot plants under
                        ( Case T-184/97)                              Article 8 (2 ) ( d ) thereof is wrong in law and in
                          ( 97IC 252/78 )                             contradiction with the position taken by the Commission
                                                                      in December 1996, when it declared the 1997 Scheme's
                 (Language of the case: English)                      predecessor measures illegal and incompatible with the
                                                                      common market and expressly stated that they could not
An action against the Commission of the European                      benefit from the 'pilot plant' derogation. Nothing has
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     changed to permit such a volte-face.
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/37
Finally, the 1997 Scheme is biased entirely in favour of the           subsequent extension of his contract, given the guidelines
incumbent French producers and their suppliers, who have               that the Commission was proposing to adopt concerning
already benefited substantially by the measures declared               temporary staff ( undertakings of 23 February and
illegal and incompatible in December 1996 ( but still in               16 March 1994 ). This action was brought following the
force today). In the result, France is levying discriminatory          refusal of the applicant's request that the Commission
taxation on imported production and the 1997 Scheme                    should apply to him its former policy, contained in its
accordingly cannot be given an exemption under                         decision of 18 March 1992, authorizing the extension of
Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ).                                                 temporary servants' contracts up to a maximum duration
                                                                       of five years .
In all these respects, the Commission has also failed to
comply with the duty to adduce sufficient reasons in its               The applicant makes the following pleas in law in support
decisions laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty.                      of his action :
                                                                       — disregard, in so far as he was concerned, of the duty
                                                                            to pay due regard to the welfare of officials,
Action brought on 23 June 1997 by Philippe Godts
    against the Commission of the European Communities                 — disregard of the principles of the protection of
                                                                            legitimate expectations and of non-retrospectivity, and
                         ( Case T-l 85/97)                                  the unenforceability against him of the Commission's
                           ( 97/C 252/79 )                                  decision of 16 March 1994 . Under that decision, new
                                                                            contracts are to be concluded, on an interim basis and
                                                                            pending a definitive decision on the reorientation of
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            the whole of the Commission's policy on temporary
                                                                            servants, for a duration of three years with no
An action against the Commission of the European                            guarantee of extension or of the opportunity to
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                          participate in an internal competition. In so far as that
 Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 1997                       decision reduces the rights of temporary servants
 by Philippe Godts, residing in Brussels, represented by                    acknowledged by the Commission in its previous
 Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                   selection notices published in 1993 , the applicant
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                   maintains that it cannot be enforced against him,
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            — disregard of the principle of equality of treatment, in
                                                                            that in this case temporary servants recruited before
                                                                             16 March 1994, unlike those recruited afterwards,
 — annul the Commission's decision of 1 August 1996,                         continue   to  benefit   without   restriction from  the
      expressly rejecting his request that he be allowed to                  principles contained in the Commission's decision of
      benefit from possible extension of his contract, up to a               18 March 1992 . It cannot reasonably be claimed that
      total of five years,                                                   the objective position of temporary servants recruited
                                                                             before and after that date is identical . Most of them
 — declare       the   Commission       decision    adopted    on            submitted their candidacy following the same pre
      13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limits all                   selection notices, which referred to the possibility of
      temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 ( a ) of             an extension of their contracts up to a duration of five
      the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a                    years ,
      maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
      extension for a maximum of one year,
                                                                        — infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations inasmuch as, with its new policy, the
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    Commission     restricted   the   recruitment   base  for
                                                                             competitions to become established officials in a way
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         contrary to the interests of the service,
 The applicant entered the Commission's service in                      — illegality of the Commission's decision of 13 November
  October 1994, as a member of the temporary staff. Both                      1996 limiting the duration of temporary contracts to
  the selection notice, which appeared in the administrative                 three years, with a possible maximum extension of
  information sheet of 10 September 1993 and in the press,                    one year. The applicant considers that, by adopting
  and the information communicated to him concerning the                     that decision, the Commission renounced a right
  status of members of the temporary staff and details of the                 conferred upon it by Article 8 of the Conditions
  method of recruiting them expressly stipulated that the                     of Employment of Other Servants to conclude
  duration of contractrs, limited to three years, could be                    employment contracts for an indefinite period.
  extended up to a total of five years . However, by letters of
  23 and 30 September 1994, the Commission told the
  applicant that no guarantee could be given as to the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-412/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Versailles): Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA v Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC) (Brussels Convention — Personal scope — Plaintiff domiciled in a non-Contracting State — Material scope — Rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Dispute concerning a reinsurance contract)

text:
C 316/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                               (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                               of 13 July 2000
in Case C-261/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            in Case C-412/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                            the Cour d’Appel, Versailles): Group Josi Reinsurance
                                                                            Company SA v Universal General Insurance Company
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                       (UGIC) (1)
Directive 76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to
                               transpose)
                                                                            (Brussels Convention — Personal scope — Plaintiff domi-
                                                                            ciled in a non-Contracting State — Material scope — Rules
                           (2000/C 316/06)                                  of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Dispute
                                                                                concerning a reinsurance contract)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                     (2000/C 316/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-261/98, Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: M.F. de Sousa Fialho) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:                                      in the European Court Reports)
L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romäo and J. Lopes Fernandes), appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or communi-
cate a summary of the pollution reduction programmes laying                 In Case C-412/98: reference to the Court under the Protocol
down quality objectives and the results thereof for the 99                  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
priority substances referred to in the first indent of List II of           the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976                     Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
on pollution caused by dangerous substances discharged into                 from the Cour d’Appel, Versailles, France, for a preliminary
the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129,                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
p. 23), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-              Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA and Universal General
gations under Article 7 of that directive and Article 189(3) of             Insurance Company (UGIC) — on the interpretation of the
the EC Treaty (now Article 249(3) EC) — the Court (Second                   provisions of Title II of the Convention of 27 September 1968,
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamb-                cited above (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the
er, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, A. Saggio,               Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
on 13 July 2000, in which it:                                               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
                                                                            amended version of the Convention at p. 77), by the Conven-
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt water pollution reduction          tion of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
      programmes laying down quality objectives to reduce pollution         Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of
      by the substances falling within the first indent of List II of the   26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
      Annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on                the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court
      pollution caused by dangerous substances discharged into the          (Sixth Chamber) composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      aquatic environment of the Community, the Portuguese Republic         President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puis-
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that          sochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
      directive;                                                            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            1.    Title II of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                         and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                                Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                                the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
                                                                                Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 316/5
      Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on             Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) precludes national
      the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese              legislation of a Member State which, on grounds relating to the
      Republic, is in principle applicable where the defendant has its      requirements of defence of the national territory, exempts the nationals
      domicile or seat in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is     of that Member State, and only them, from the obligation to apply
      domiciled in a non-member country. It would be otherwise only         for an administrative authorisation for any purchase of real estate
      in exceptional cases where an express provision of that               situated within an area of the national territory designated as being
      convention provides that the application of the rule of jurisdic-     of military importance.
      tion which it sets out is dependent on the plaintiff’s domicile
      being in a Contracting State.                                         The position would be different only if it could be demonstrated to
                                                                            the competent national court that, in a particular area, non-
2.    The rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance    discriminatory treatment of the nationals of all the Member States
      set out in Articles 7 to 12a of that convention do not cover          would expose the military interests of the Member State concerned to
      disputes between a reinsurer and a reinsured in connection with       real, specific and serious risks which could not be countered by less
      a reinsurance contract.                                               restrictive procedures.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                     (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             of 13 July 2000
in Case C-423/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    the Corte d’Appello di Napoli): by Alfredo Albore(1)                    the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital                        (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
— Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       — National legislation providing that commercial agency
Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)                 contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of
— Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable                                                 agents are void)
property — Areas of military importance — Discrimination
                     on grounds of nationality)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/09)
                           (2000/C 316/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (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 Case C-456/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Brescia
In Case C-423/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Magistrates’ Court, Brescia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte d’Appello                 the proceedings pending before that court between Centrosteel
di Napoli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Srl and Adipol GmbH — on the interpretation of Council
pending before that court by Alfredo Albore — on the                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
interpretation of Articles 6, 52 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now,              nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 46 EC) and                       employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) and of
Article 67 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of                      the provisions in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Title III of Part
Amsterdam) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                        Three of the EC Treaty concerning, respectively, freedom of
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                 establishment and freedom to provide services — the Court
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,              (first chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamb-
Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                   er, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                     on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-300/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2011 — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2011 — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-300/11)
   2011/C 252/37
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ZZ

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Question referred

      ‘Does the principle of effective judicial protection, set out in Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38 (1), as interpreted in the light of Article 346(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, require that a judicial body considering an appeal from a decision to exclude a European Union citizen from a member state on grounds of public policy and public security under Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38 ensure that the European Union citizen concerned is informed of the essence of the grounds against him, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of the Member State and the relevant domestic court, after consideration of the totality of the evidence against the European Union citizen relied upon by the authorities of the Member State, conclude that the disclosure of the essence of the grounds against him would be contrary to the interests of state security?’

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case T-214/06: Action brought on 17 August 2006 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/11

         Action brought on 17 August 2006 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission
   (Case T-214/06)
   (2006/C 237/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, H. Rosenblatt, B. Lebrun, lawyers, W. Turner and S. Berwick, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2(c) of the contested decision; or in the alternative

               —

               amend Article 2(c) of the contested decision so as to reduce the fine imposed on ICI; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates, by which the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a methacrylates cartel which consisted of discussing prices, agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements either in form of price increases, or at least stabilisation of existing price levels, discussing the passing on of additional service costs to customers, exchange of commercially important and confidential market and/or company relevant information and participating in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement.
   Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission did not satisfy its burden of proof under Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1) for an infringement in relation to polymethyl methacrylate moulding compounds as it based its findings of the applicant's cartel activity on certain parts of immunity and leniency applications which were, to the extent that they relate to polymethyl methacrylate moulding compounds and to the applicant's period of ownership of the acrylics business, not supported by any relevant evidence and which were moreover conflicting with one another on important aspects. The applicant argues that such material does not satisfy the Commission's obligation to establish findings of an infringement with substantial and reliable evidence.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to reason the amount of the fine when calculating the gravity element hereof contrary to Article 253 EC.
   Thirdly, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed an error of law by incorrectly treating the applicant and the company Lucite as competitors rather than consecutive participants in the alleged infringement whereby the impact on competition was counted double. This resulted in a larger aggregated fine for the applicant and Lucite merely because the business changed hands.
   Fourthly, the applicant asserts that the Commission applied an incorrect standard for imposing an uplift for deterrence by relying solely on the applicant's turnover and not considering evidence of the applicant's economic capacity. Moreover, the applicant finds the deterrence uplift disproportionate with that imposed on another party in the cartel.
   Fifthly, the applicant contends that the Commission improperly denied the applicant leniency and credit for cooperation outside the Leniency Notice (2). According to the applicant, the material it voluntarily submitted to the Commission constitutes the requisite significant added value under the Leniency Notice.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)


title: Case C-174/03: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy)) — Impresa Portuale di Cagliari Srl v Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/28

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy)) — Impresa Portuale di Cagliari Srl v Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA
   (Case C-174/03) (1)

   (2006/C 178/47)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)
   (2005/C 217/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 12 May 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 22.07.2000.


title: Case T-621/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
   (Case T-621/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DINKOOL - Earlier international figurative mark DIN - Earlier national business identifier DIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by M. Bagh, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2014 (Case R 1312/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 December 1996 in Case C-91/96 Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations not contested - Directives 92/118/EEC and 93/52/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

text:
No C 40/4            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
2 . Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude                        H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
     application of national legislation which grants the               Colomer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
     holder of a patent for a pharmaceutical product the                a judgment on 5 December 1996 in which it:
     right to oppose importation by a third party of that
     product from another Member State in circumstances
                                                                        I. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     where the holder first put the product on the market
                                                                            periods the laws, regulations and administrative
     in that State after its accession to the European
                                                                            provisions necessary to comply with, first, Council
     Community but before the product could be protected
                                                                            Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying
     by a patent in that State, unless the holder of the                    down animal health and public health requirements
     patent can prove that he is under a genuine, existing                  governing trade in and imports into the Community of
     legal obligation to market the product in that Member                  products not subject to the said requirements laid
     State.
                                                                            down in specific Community rules referred to in
                                                                            Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards
(') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , and                                       pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC and, second,
    OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10. 1995 .                                           Council Directive 93/S2/EEC of 24 June 1993
                                                                            amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health
                                                                            conditions governing intra-Community trade in and
                                                                            importation from third countries of embryos of
                                                                            domestic animals of the bovine species, the Hellenic
                                                                            Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on
                                                                            it by Articles 20 (1 ) and 2 (1 ) respectively of those
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Directives;
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                       2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                      of 5 December 1996
in    Case    C-91/96 Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Failure to fulfil obligations not contested — Directives
92/118/EEC and 93/52/EEC — Failure to transpose
                 within the prescribed periods)
                             ( 97/C 40/07 )                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                              of 12 December 1996
                                                                       in Case C-104/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens ): Georgios Kontogeorgas
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                v. Kartonpak AE (')
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Approximation of laws — Self-employed commercial
                                                                       agents — Entitlement to commission — Commercial
In Case C-91/96: Commission of the European                            transactions concluded during the period covered by the
Communities ( Agent: Maria Condou-Durande ) v. Hellenic                                          agency contract)
Republic (Agents : Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Nana                                             ( 97/C 40/08 )
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt within the prescribed periods the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                                  (Language of the case: Greek)
comply with, first, Council Directive 92/ 118/EEC of
17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
health requirements governing trade in and imports into
the Community of products not subject to the said                                published in the European Court Reports)
requirements laid down in specific Community rules
referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as           In Case C-104/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC ( OJ No L 62,               of the EC Treaty by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens, for
15 . 3 . 1993, p. 49 ) and, second, Council Directive                  a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993 amending Directive                           that court between Georgios Kontogeorgas and Kartonpak
89/556/EEC on animal health conditions governing intra                AE on the interpretation of Article 7 (2 ) of Council
Community trade in and importation from third countries                Directive   86/653/EEC of 18          December   1986 on the
of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species ( OJ              coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to
No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p. 21 ), the Hellenic Republic has           self-employed commercial agents ( OJ No L 382 , 31 . 12 .
failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the Treaty           1986 , p. 17 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
and by those Directives — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),                  D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber,
composed of G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,                   C. Gulmann, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M.
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                     Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.


title: Case C-489/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger
   (Case C-489/07)
   (2008/C 22/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Lahr
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pia Messner

      Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel
   Question referred
   Is Article 6(2) in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that, in the case of a revocation by a consumer within the revocation period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods delivered?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 144, p. 19.


title: Case C-385/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 19 April 2013 in Joined Cases T-99/09 and T-308/09 Italian Republic v European Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/24

         Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 19 April 2013 in Joined Cases T-99/09 and T-308/09 Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-385/13 P)
   2013/C 252/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri e P. Gentile, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Setting aside of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 April 2013 in Joined Cases T-99/09 and T-308/09, notified to the Italian Government on 24 April 2013

               —

               Adjudicating on the merits of the case, the annulment of the following acts:

                           —

                           Letter No 000841 of 2 February 2009 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as stated in the memorandum of 22 December 2008 referred to above’;

                           —

                           Letter No 001059 of 6 February 2009 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Suspension of the request for payment and for information concerning financial corrections under Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99 for the Campania Regional Operation’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as previously indicated’;

                           —

                           Letter No 012480 of 22 December 2008 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ROP Campania 2000-2006 (CCI No 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Outcome of infringement procedure 2007/2195 on waste management in Campania, by which ‘the Commission requests that, with effect from the next request for payment, all expenditure relating to measure 1.7 incurred after 29 June 2007 be deducted’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Italian Republic relies on the following eight pleas:

               First plea: Breach of Article 9(e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (l), (m); point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3), Article 32(4) and (5); and the second subparagraph of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1260/99 (1).

               In order for a request for payment of assistance from a structural fund for actions provided for in a measure to be declared unacceptable on the basis that an infringement procedure is pending, it is necessary that there be a specific and non-generic relationship between the infringement and the measure in question and the Commission would have to show the specific danger that financing the measure would result in financing the infringement. It would not be enough, as the General Court found, to only have a ‘sufficiently direct link’ which is not otherwise corroborated.

               Second plea: Breach of the second clause of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999.

               In the present case, in any event, such a link is missing because the General Court found that it was apparent from the case file that in the infringement procedure the insufficient differentiated collection was relied on as a contributory cause for the insufficiency of landfills and that under measure 1.7 aid was to be provided to municipalities to increase differentiated collection. The General Court therefore was unable to clarify whether the link between the infringement and the measure was such that the financing of the measure mitigated or aggravated the infringement. On that basis the General Court should have ruled out the existence of any such link and accepted the first plea of the application initiating proceedings.

               Third plea: Failure to provide adequate reasons.

               In the third plea of the application at first instance, the Italian Government demonstrated clearly that there was no overlap between the infringement and the measure. The General Court, when rejecting the first plea, found to the contrary without examining the evidence submitted by the Italian Government, and in so doing it failed to provide adequate reasons.

               Fourth plea: Breach of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999. Failure to provide adequate reasons.

               The breach of the above vitiates also the part of the judgment in which the General Court rejected the second plea of the application at first instance.

               Fifth plea: Failure to provide adequate reasons.

               There is a failure to provide adequate reasons also with respect to the rejection of the third plea of the application initiating proceedings, in which the Italian Government stated that the contested proceedings were grounded on a letter of the Commission of 20 October 2008 which challenged facts which were not referred to in the infringement procedure. The General Court failed to take account of that argument.

               Sixth plea: Breach of the second clause of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999.

               In any event, since, when ruling on the fourth plea, the General Court found in essence that the letter of 20 October 2008 referred to facts unconnected to the infringement proceedings it therefore should have accepted the third plea. By not having done so, it breached the second clause of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999.

               Seventh plea: Breach of the first and second clauses of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3) and of Article 39(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1260/1999.

               The General Court wrongly rejected the fourth plea of the application initiating proceedings, in which the Italian Government criticised the Commission for having suspended the payments due to concerns about the correctness of the management of the measure; it did, however, require that the procedure set out in Article 39(1) and (2) of Regulation No1260/1999, referred to in the first clause of point (f) of the first subparagraph of Article 32(3), be followed. The General Court was unable to refute the arguments of the Italian Government concerning the reasoning of the measure adopted by the Commission.

               Eight plea: Breach of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

               The General Court wrongly rejected the argument that the Commission had failed to provide adequate reasons. Considering the importance that argument, the Commission should have explained why there was not any contradiction between condemning insufficient differentiated collection in the infringement procedure and refusing to finance the measure aimed at increasing differentiated collection.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1).