title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): F. G. Roders BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Excise duties on wine - Discriminatory internal taxation - Benelux system)

text:
No C 268/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
training and promotion, and working conditions.                                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
( 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 26 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                        in Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 (references for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
                                                                                Accijnzen (*)
                                                                        (Excise duties on wine — Discriminatory internal taxation
                                                                                — Benelux system)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              95/C 268/08 )
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 13 July 1995                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case        C-216/94 : Commission of the             European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Failure to fulfil Treaty obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC                      published in the European Court Reports)
— Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion ofprofessional education and training ofat least
                       three years ' duration)                          In Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 : references to the
                            ( 95/C 268/07 )
                                                                        Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty from the
                                                                        Tariefcommissie ( Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                        Excise ), Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         proceedings pending before that court between F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV ( C-367/93 to C-370/93 ), RSK Internationale
                                                                        Expeditieen Vervoeronderneming BV ( C-371/93 and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            C-372/93 ), Damco van Swieten BV ( C-373/93 and
           published in the European Court Reports)                     C-377/93 ), VGL Internationale Expeditie BV ( C-374/93
                                                                        and C-375/93 ), Zaans Veem BV ( C-376/93 ) and Inspecteur
In Case C-216/94 : Commission of the European                           der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the interpretation of
Communities ( agent: Marie-José Jonczy ) v. Kingdom of                  Article 95 of the EEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Belgium ( agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                     composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed                 P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris and
period the measures necessary to comply with Council                    J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro,
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rùhl , Principal Administrator, for
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , in
                                                                        which it rules that :
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years' duration ( OJ No L 19 , p . 16 ),
and, in the alternative, by not notifying such measures to the          1 , a Member State may not rely on Article 233 of the EEC
Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                  Treaty in order to avoid its obligations under Article 95
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth                          of that Treaty where this is not indispensable for the
 Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of                    good functioning of the Benelux system;
the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
 ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      2 , the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EEC Treaty is to
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it rules:                                be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national
                                                                             court, having regard to the criteria identified by the
                                                                             Court of Justice, to assess whether:
 1 , by not adopting within the prescribed period the
      measures necessary to comply with Council Directive                    — products such as, on the one hand, red table wine,
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system                         quality red wines produced in specified regions,
      for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                           sherry, madeira and vermouth and, on the other
      awarded on completion of professional education and                        hand, still fruit wines whose alcoholic strength does
       training ofat least three years ' duration, the Kingdom of                not exceed 15% vol, are similar;
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
       Treaty;                                                               — products such as champagne and sparkling fruit
                                                                                wines whose alcoholic strength does not exceed
 2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                         15% vol are similar.
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                       3 . The second paragraph of Article 95 is to be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that, in order to assess the compatibility ofa
                                                                             fiscal charge, account must be taken of the impact of
                                                                             that charge on the competitive relationships between the
 ---pagebreak---  14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/5
      products concerned, so that it is important in particular        Article 37 (2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the
      to ascertain whether the charge would have the effect,            Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
      on the market in question, of reducing potential                 Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
      consumption of the imported products to the advantage            Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
      of competing domestic products. The national court               on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      must have regard here to the difference between the              the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      selling prices of the products in question and the impact        are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a
      of that difference on the consumer's choice, as well as to       court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against
      changes in the consumption of those products.                    authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment ofa court
                                                                       in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay
                                                                       previously ordered cannot be contested by an appeal in
4 . There are no grounds for limiting in time the effects of           cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the
      the present judgment.                                            examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court
                                                                       seised of such an appeal on a point of law under
(') OJ No C 251 , 15 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                       Article 37 (2) ofthe Convention dies not have jurisdiction to
                                                                       impose or reimpose such a stay.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 11 August 1995
                        of 11 August 1995                              in Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
in Case C-432/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )
the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Société                       (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil
d'Informatique Service Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO )               obligations — Public works and public supply contracts)
                  v. Ampersand Software BV ( ] )                                                 95/C 268/ 10 )
(Brussels Convention — Articles 36, 37 and 38 —
Enforcement — Judgment given on an appeal against
authorization ofenforcement — Appeal on a point oflaw —                               (Language of the case: German)
                       Stay ofproceedings)
                            ( 95/C 268/09 )                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: English)                       In Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( agents : Hendrik van Lier and Angela
                                                                       Bardenhewer ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( agents : Kay
In Case C-432/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol           Hailbronner, Professor at the University of Konstanz, and
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice           Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction                 to adopt or notify within the prescribed period all the
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial               measures necessary to comply with the requirements arising
Matters by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ), London,             under Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before             amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination
that court between Société d'Informatique Service                      of procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO ) and Ampersand Software              repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ
BV — on the interpretation of Article 37 (2 ) and the first            No L 127, p. 1 ) and under Council Directive 89/440/EEC of
paragraph of Article 38 of the said Convention of                      18 July 1989 amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning
27 September 1968 ( OJ No L 304 , p . 36 ) as amended by the           coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                   contracts ( OJ No L 210, p . 1 ), the Federal Republic of
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and            Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
— as amended — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                 Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), President of           Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann ( Presidents of
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray               Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
and G. Hirsch, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate-General; D.                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                     Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
operative part of which is as follows:                                 11 August 1995 , in which it:


title: Case T-88/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/25

         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-88/17)
   (2017/C 095/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in part, as regards the paying agency of Extremadura, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015), under which that agency was not reimbursed in the sum of EUR 5 364 682,52.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), amended by Council Regulation No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 144, p. 3), in so far as it does not allow the deduction of a sum of EUR 5 364 682,52 (non-reusable amounts) in the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, if the Court should hold that there is not an infringement of Article 69 of Regulation No 1698/2005, that the defendant’s acts are arbitrary, exceeding the institution’s discretion and also infringing the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  15 November 2005  in Case C-392/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Communities' own resources — Customs duties legally owing not subsequently recovered following an error by the national customs authorities — Financial liability of Member States)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 15 November 2005
   in Case C-392/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Customs duties legally owing not subsequently recovered following an error by the national customs authorities - Financial liability of Member States)
   (2005/C 330/01)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-392/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H.-P. Hartvig and G. Wilms) v Kingdom of Denmark, (Agent: J. Molde), supported by Kingdom of Belgium, (Agent: A. Snoecx), Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by D. Sellner and U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwälte), Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. de Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel), Portuguese Republic, (Agents: L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and J.A. dos Anjos), Kingdom of Sweden, (Agents: A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk), — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 November 2002 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), P. Kūris, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to make available to the Commission of the European Communities an amount of DKK 140 409.60 in own resources, together with default interest thereon calculated as from 20 December 1999, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities' own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31,8.2.2003.


title: Case T-117/17: Action brought on 23 February 2017 — Proximus v Council

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/36

         Action brought on 23 February 2017 — Proximus v Council
   (Case T-117/17)
   (2017/C 151/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council notified to the applicant on 23 December 2016, to award the contract to another tenderer and not to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the methodology applied to evaluate the price of the offers does not allow to choose the most economically advantageous offer, which is required by European Union law.


title: Case F-127/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Pinto Ferreira v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Withholding an amount from the pension — Outside activity without permission — No request for prior permission)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/37

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Pinto Ferreira v Commission
      (Case F-127/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Withholding an amount from the pension - Outside activity without permission - No request for prior permission))
      (2016/C 364/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: António Gaspar Pinto Ferreira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C.W. Godfrey, C. Antoine and M. Gomes Lopes, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision imposing the disciplinary measure of withholding EUR 185 from the applicant’s pension for a 12-month period and taking effect on the date on which he is to retire, on account of the exercise of an outside activity without permission.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 16 December 2014 whereby the appointing authority of the European Commission imposed on Mr António Gaspar Pinto Ferreira the measure provided for in Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Pinto Ferreira.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 43.


title: Case C-53/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Rental and lending right — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-53/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright - Rental and lending right - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 212/12)
   Language of the case: Portugese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and W.Wils, agents)

      Defendant: Portugese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and N. Gonçalves, agents)

      Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by exempting all categories of public lending establishments from the obligation to pay remuneration to authors for public lending, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property.

               2.

               Orders the Portugese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.


title: Case T-218/08: Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Stephen Turner (ICON)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/33

         Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Stephen Turner (ICON)
   (Case T-218/08)
   (2008/C 197/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lemans Corporation (Janesville, United States) (represented by: M. Cover, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stephen Turner (Luddington, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 March 2008 in case R 589/2007-2;

               —

               declare that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ICON’ for goods and services in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2 197 366

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘IKON’ for goods in class 9 — UK trade mark registration No 2 243 676

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the other party to the proceedings before it had locus standi to file the opposition.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for a declaration of failure to act - No need for the case to proceed to judgment)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 327/19
lists every third time the end of a rota is reached in respect      Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
of cases covered by the first indent of paragraph 2(c), or          Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
every sixth time the end of the rota is reached in respect          J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
of cases covered by paragraph 2(a) and the second and               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
third indents of paragraph 2(c).                                    1998, in which it:
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate           1. Declares that the case need not proceed to judgment;
from that order on the ground that cases are related or
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
                                                                    2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Plenary session
                                                                    (1) OJ C 119, 13.5.1995.
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the                                      of 16 September 1998
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in               in Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according            Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of                                Communities (1)
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated
                                                                    (Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the Judge
                                                                       Partial rejection of a complaint Ð Community interest)
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
                                                                                (98/C 327/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           In Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
                    of 16 September 1998                            Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva
                                                                    (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of
in Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and
Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European                      Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       Communities (1)                              the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
(Competition Ð Action for a declaration of failure to act           against Commission of the European Communities
       Ð No need for the case to proceed to judgment)               (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and
                                                                    Rosemary Caudwell, subsequently Rosemary Caudwell,
                        (98/C 327/32)                               Fabiola Mascardi and Nicholas Forwood), supported by
                                                                    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                    (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during the oral procedure,
                (Language of the case: English)                     also Nicholas Green), La Poste, represented by HerveÂ
                                                                    Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, and The Post Office,
Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva                represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the Supreme
(Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of            Court of England and Wales, and, during the oral
the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and             procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,
Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                  the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
against Commission of the European Communities                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and             of 17 February 1995 definitively rejecting that part of the
Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently Rosemary                        complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988
Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi) Ð application for a                  denouncing a price-fixing agreement concluded in October
declaration that, in failing to define its position on the          1987 by a number of public postal operators Ð the Court
applicant's complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the            of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
EC Treaty (IV/32.791 Ð Remail), the Commission has                  composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
failed to act Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                  Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio


title: Case C-701/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Transport — Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ — Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/4

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA
   (Case C-701/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Transport - Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ - Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC - National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport))
   (2017/C 293/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

      Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

      Intervening party: Beta-Trans SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not require a public selection procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation, including a temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case F-73/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Sukup v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration and allowances — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Retrospective award)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Sukup v Commission
   (Case F-73/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Remuneration and allowances - Dependent child allowance - Education allowance - Retrospective award)
   2011/C 252/108
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Sukup (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for administration and payment of individual rights refusing to grant the applicant dependent child allowance or education allowance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Sukup to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, of 07.11.2009, p. 84.


title: Case T-401/04: Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/28

         Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-401/04)
   (2005/C 19/59)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH, Kirchheimboladen, Germany, represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

               —

               Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.


title: Case T-240/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community mark oli — Earlier Community word marks OLAY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009])

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)
   (Case T-240/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community mark oli - Earlier Community word marks OLAY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009])
   2009/C 205/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: T. Scourfield, N. Beckett, Solicitors and A. Speck, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Alcala Farma SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1481/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Procter & Gamble Company and Laboratorios Alcala Farma, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-488/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Sarc v Commission (State aid — Software licence agreement — Decision finding no State aid — Actions for annulment — Competitive position not substantially affected — Inadmissibility — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Admissibility — Failure to initiate formal investigation procedure — No serious difficulties — Advantage)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Sarc v Commission
   (Case T-488/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Software licence agreement - Decision finding no State aid - Actions for annulment - Competitive position not substantially affected - Inadmissibility - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Admissibility - Failure to initiate formal investigation procedure - No serious difficulties - Advantage))
   2014/C 245/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart and R. Bolhaar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, K. Talabér-Ritz and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by C. Wissels, M. Noort and B. Koopman, and subsequently by C. Wissels, M. Noort, J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Technische Universiteit Delft (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van den Tweel and P. Huurnink, lawyers).

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 relating to the State Aid Proceedings NN 68/2010 — Netherlands, declaring after the preliminary examination stage that the licence agreement for the use of a software source code concluded between Technische Universiteit Delft and Delftship BV does not constitute State aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Technische Universiteit Delft;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-12/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iran Insurance v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Iran Insurance v Council
   (Case T-12/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Infringement of international law - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)
   2013/C 304/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment (i) of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Annex VIII to 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), in so far as they concern the applicant; (ii) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 28 October 2010; (iii) of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as they may affect the applicant’s situation; (iv) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 5 December 2011; (v) of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant; and (vi) of any future regulation or decision of the Council or of the Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; and, secondly, for a declaration that the following are inapplicable to the applicant: Articles 12 and 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413; Articles 16(2) and 26 of Regulation No 961/2010; Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22); Articles 23(2) and 35 of Regulation No 267/2012; Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58); Article 1(11) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34); and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letters from the Council dated 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Iran Insurance Company ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council dated 28 October 2010;

               3.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Iran Insurance Company, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               4.

               Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Iran Insurance Company until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Iran Insurance Company;

               5.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iran Insurance Company;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1996 in Case C-308/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v. J. M. Cabanis-Issarte (Social security for migrant workers - Voluntary old-age insurance - Surviving spouse of a worker - Equal treatment)

text:
22 . 6 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/ 13
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder, assisted by Michel                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for a                                    of 30 April 1996
declaration that, by taking into account, in the procedure
for the award of a public contract by the Société régionale         in Case C-308/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
wallonne du transport, amendments made to one of the                the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): Bestuur van de Sociale
tenders after the opening of those tenders, by admitting to                Verzekeringsbank v. J. M. Cabanis-Issarte ( 1 )
the procedure for the award of the contract a tenderer who          (Social security for migrant workers — Voluntary old-age
did not meet the selection criteria laid down in the contract       insurance — Surviving spouse of a worker — Equal
documents and by accepting a tender which did not meet the                                    treatment)
criteria for the award of the contract laid down in the                                    ( 96/C 180/26 )
contract documents, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC of
17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of
entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 297, 1990, p. 1 ) and                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
to comply with the principle of equal treatment, which
underlies all the rules on procedures for the award of public
contracts — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A.
O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon ,                     published in the European Court Reports)
Judges; Advocate-General : C. O. Lenz; Registrar: H. A.
Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 25 April
1996, in which it:
                                                                    In Case C-308/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
1 . Declares that, by taking into account, in the procedure         court between Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank and
     for the award of a public contract by the Société              J. M. Cabanis-Issarte on the interpretation of Articles 2 and
     régionale wallonne du transport, information on fuel           3 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     consumption submitted by EMI in its supplementary              on the application of social security schemes to employed
     note of24 August 1 993 and, therefore, after the opening       persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
     offenders, by awarding the contract to EMI on the basis        families moving within the Community, as amended and
     of figures which did not correspond to the prescriptive        updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June
     requirements of Annex 23 of the special conditions for         1983 ( OJ No L 230, 1983 , p. 6 ), the Court, composed of
     calculating the notional penalty ofEMI for maintenance         G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
     costs in respect of engine and gearbox replacement, by         Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
     taking into account, when comparing the tenders for            Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
     Lots Nos 4, 5 and 6, the cost-saving features suggested        P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
     by EMI without having referred to them in the contract         Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G.
     documents or in the tender notice, by using them to            Tesauro,    Advocate-General;     D.    Louterman-Hubeau,
     offset the financial differences between the tenders in        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     first place and those of EMI placed second, and by             judgment on 30 April 1996 in which it ruled :
     accepting some of EMI's tenders as a result of taking
     those features into account, the Kingdom ofBelgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
     90/531 /EEC of 17 September 1990 on the procurement            1 . Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,             No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial
     transport and telecommunications sectors.                          security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                        persons and to members of their families moving within
                                                                        the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June 1983, are to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they may be relied on by the
2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     surviving spouse ofa migrant worker for the purpose of
                                                                        determining the rate of contribution in relation to a
                                                                        period of voluntary insurance completed under the
                                                                        old-age pension scheme of the Member State in which
P ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                       the worker was employed.
                                                                    2 . This judgment may not be relied on in support of claims
                                                                        concerning benefits relating to periods prior to the date
                                                                        ofdelivery ofthe judgment, except by persons who have,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 180/ 14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
      prior to that date, initiated proceedings or raised an                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      equivalent claim.                                                                             ( Sixth Chamber)
(M OJ No C 196 , 20 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                                                                            in Case C- 1 8/94 ( reference to the Court for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling from the High Court ofJustice of England and Wales,
                                                                            Queen's Bench Division ): Barbara Hopkins and Others v.
                                                                            National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party: British Coal
                                                                                Corporation ( 1 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        (ECSC Treaty — Discrimination between producers —
                           of 30 April 1996                                 Application of Articles 4 and 63 of the Treaty — Direct
in Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of                  effect — EC Treaty — Abuse of dominant position —
                       the European Union (')                               Article 86 of the Treaty — Compensation for damage
                                                                            resulting from infringement of those provisions — Powers
 (Action for annulment — Rules on public access to Council                         of the Commission and of the national court)
                               documents)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/28 )
                             ( 96/C 180/27 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents : A.                  In Case C- 1 8/94 , reference to the Court by the High Court
Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ), supported by the European                         of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division,
Parliament ( Agents : G. Garzón Clariana , C. Pennera and E.                for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Vandenbosch ) v. Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   and Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty in the proceedings
J. -P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin ), supported by the                           pending before that court between Barbara Hopkins and
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : P.                        Others v. National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party:
Vaan Nuffel and S. Van Raepenbusch ) and the French                         British Coal Corporation — on the interpretation of
Republic ( Agents : C. de Salins and H. Renié ) — application               Articles 4 and 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 86 of the
for the annulment of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC of                        EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N.
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                      Kakouris , President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
( OJ No L 340, 1993 , p . 43 ), Article 22 of the Rules of                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.
Procedure of the Council as amended by Council Decision                     Kapteyn, Judges, Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar:
93/662/EC of 6 December 1993 ( OJ No L 304, 1993 , p . 1 )                  L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on 2 May 1 996 ,
and the Code of Conduct ( 93/730/EC ) concerning public                     the operative part of which is as follows :
access to Council and Commission documents ( OJ No
L 340, 1 993 , p . 4 1 ) in so far as that act is to be regarded as an
act having legal effects — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     1 . The provisions of the ECSC Treaty, and in particular
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                         Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) thereof, constitute the legal
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                           framework for dealing with discrimination practised by
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                           purchasers against producers as regards price, volume
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                       and other terms and conditions for the purchase of
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General;                          coal.
H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 30 April 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                           2 . Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) of the ECSC Treaty do not
I. The application is dismissed.                                                create rights which individuals may rely on directly
                                                                                before national courts. However, wherever the
2 . The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the                        provisions ofa recommendation based on Article 63 (1 )
     costs .
                                                                                appear, as regards their subject-matter, to be
                                                                                unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions
                                                                                may be relied upon directly by individuals before the
3 . The French Republic, the European Parliament and the                        national court.
     Commission of the European Communities are ordered
     to bear their own costs .
() OJ No C 90, 26. 3 . 1994.                                               3 Commission decisions based on Articles 65 and 66 (7) of
                                                                                the ECSC Treaty, which are binding in their entirety
                                                                                pursuant to Article 14 of the ECSC Treaty, are binding


title: Case C-56/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2012 by European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Appeal brought on 3 February 2012 by European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission
   (Case C-56/12 P)
   2012/C 118/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 and determine the underlying dispute;

               —

               allow the applications made at first instance and thus annul Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Article 102 TFEU);

               —

               order the Commission and Lexmark International Technology SA to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward five grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011. These relate to the legally erroneous denial in the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2009 of the existence of European Union interest and the priority of a investigation procedure relating to the law on cartels.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to annul the Commission’s decision in so far as that decision deemed it unlikely that it would be possible to establish proof of collective and individual market dominance on the part of inkjet printer manufacturers in relation to their secondary markets for ink cartridges and ink.
   Second, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law in ruling out the likelihood of establishing proof of a dominant position on the part of printer manufacturers on their markets for ink cartridges.
   Third, according to the appellant, the General Court manifestly erred in law in its appraisal of the significance of the priority criterion that determines the decision to initiate an investigation. Consequently the General Court erred in law in failing to establish that, in the decision at issue, the Commission infringed its obligation to state the reasons for its decision, in the light of the assessment criteria of the significance, gravity and continuing nature of the infringement.
   Fourth, the appellant submits that the judgment is wrong in law as regards the legal assessment of the Commission’s appraising decision from the point of view of misuse of powers, in that the Commission’s decision was not annulled even though — without giving reasons — it rejected the initiation of an investigation procedure on the pretext of complexity and disproportionate resources.
   Finally, the judgment is incompatible with the Notice of 27 April 2004 on jurisdiction in complaint proceedings relating to cartels and on the principle of effective relief as part of the assessment of the European Union interest, as well as with the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, culminating in the non-annulment of the Commission decision at issue, notwithstanding the fact that, in its assessment of the European Union interest, the Commission contradicts its own Notice of 27 April 2004 and fails to substantiate the proposition that adequate relief is provided by the national courts.


title: Case C-351/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Christian Grimme v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse (Freedom of movement for persons — Member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law, director of a branch in Germany — Compulsory membership of the German pension insurance scheme — Exemption from that obligation for members of managing boards of companies limited by shares governed by German law)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Christian Grimme v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse
   (Case C-351/08) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law, director of a branch in Germany - Compulsory membership of the German pension insurance scheme - Exemption from that obligation for members of managing boards of companies limited by shares governed by German law)
   2010/C 11/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Grimme

      Defendant: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, BGl Bertil Grimme AG Insurance Brokers

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht — Interpretation of Articles 1, 5, 7 and 16 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, and of Articles 12, 17, 18 and 19 of Annex I to that agreement (OJ L 114 of 30.04.2002, p. 6) — National legislation requiring a member of a managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law who manages in Germany a branch of that company to be insured in the German statutory pension insurance scheme, whilst exempting members of managing boards of companies limited by shares governed by German law from that obligation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 and, in particular, Articles 1, 5, 7 and 16 thereof as well as Articles 12, and 17 to 19 of Annex I thereto, do not preclude the legislation of a Member State from requiring a person, who is a national of that Member State and employed in the territory thereof to join the statutory pension insurance scheme of that Member State, despite the fact that that person is a member of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by Swiss law when members of the managing board of a company limited by shares governed by the law of that Member State are not obliged to join that insurance scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-120/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A. v Juan José González Rey and Others

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A. v Juan José González Rey and Others
   (Case C-120/16)
   (2016/C 175/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Spain)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A.

      Defendants: Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey and Francisco Rodríguez Alonso

      Question referred

   Is the use of an agreed remunerative interest rate in a situation in which default interest is applicable in accordance with Directive 93/13 (1) or, on the contrary, does it presuppose an amendment of the contract which is not permitted under EU case-law?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-386/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Pegler v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/34

         Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Pegler v Commission
   (Case T-386/06)
   (2007/C 20/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pegler Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson, QC, and A. Collinson, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 3 of the Decision COMP/F-1/38.121 in respect of the applicant; and

               —

               annul Article 2(h) of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine jointly and severally on the applicant.

               —

               Alternatively, order that the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2(h) of the decision is reduced to EUR 5.2 million; and

               —

               the fine for which the applicant is made jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 2(h) is reduced to EUR 1.7 million.

               —

               In either case, the defendant should be ordered to bear the costs of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission has not taken account of factual documentary evidence from the applicant and that the contested decision should have been addressed exclusively to the applicant's former parent company Tomkins for the following reasons.
   Concerning the period from 31 December 1988 to 20 January 1989 the Commission has, according to the applicant, imposed liability on the applicant simply by virtue of its acquisition on 20 January 1989 of the name ‘Pegler Ltd’ and by virtue of the existence of an agency relationship with the Tomkins group company FHT Holdings Ltd (‘FHT’) in circumstances where the applicant did not acquire any of the underlying assets, employees or liabilities and remained dormant, receiving no remuneration in its capacity as agent for FHT.
   Concerning the period from 20 January 1989 to 29 October 1993 the applicant submits that the Commission has imposed liability on the applicant for acts that could only have been carried out as agent for FHT, in circumstances where FHT owned all of the underlying assets, employees or liabilities of the ‘Pegler’ business.
   The Commission has, according to the applicant, failed to identify a clear addressee for the contested decision and has instead addressed its decision in respect of the same facts to two different undertakings.
   The applicant contends, moreover, that the Commission has, inconsistently with the principle of equality of treatment, with Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and with the Commission's fining guidelines (2), imposed on two different undertakings joint and several liability for payment of a fine calculated without reference to their individual circumstances but rather on the individual circumstances of only one of them, i.e. Tomkins.
   Alternatively, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to comply with the fining guidelines, its own consistent practice and the principles of non-discrimination and equality of treatment in calculating the fine for which the applicant is held liable by reference to the individual circumstances of a different undertaking, Tomkins. The applicant further alleges that the Commission committed an error in calculating the fine.

      (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 of 14 January 1998 entitled ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty’ (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case T-355/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2014  — STC v Commission (Interim measures — Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case not made out)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2014 — STC v Commission
   (Case T-355/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case not made out))
   (2015/C 056/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: STC SpA (Forlì, Italy) (represented by: A. Marelli and G. Delucca, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti, L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In essence (i) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 in which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by STC in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine on the Ispra (Italy) site of its Joint Research Centre (JRC) (OJ 2013/S 137-237146), the decision in which the Commission awarded the contract to CPL Concordia and consequently all other subsequent decisions; and (ii) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision to refuse the request for access to the documents and an interim measure to allow the full exercise of the right of access to the tender documents.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-239/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Bonvecchiati Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/24

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Bonvecchiati Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-239/13 P)
   2013/C 207/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Bonvecchiati Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-517/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ — Earlier national word mark QUO VADIS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’)
   (Case T-517/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ - Earlier national word mark QUO VADIS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 429/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Quo Vadis (Carquefou, France) (represented by: F. Valentin and J. Canlorbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Francisco Gómez Hernández (Jacarilla, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2013 (Case R 1166/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Francisco Gómez Hernández and Éditions Quo Vadis.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Éditions Quo Vadis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-374/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Ganeder — Earlier community word mark Ganter — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Lorenz Shoe Group v OHIM — Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making (Ganeder)
   (Case T-374/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Ganeder - Earlier community word mark Ganter - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 15/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lorenz Shoe Group AG (Taufkirchen an der Pram, Austria) (represented initially by M. Douglas, subsequently by N. Hebeis, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd (Cangshan Fuzhou, China) (represented by: A. Paschke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1), relating to an opposition procedure between shoe fashion group Lorenz AG and Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1289/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Lorenz Shoe Group AG;

               3.

               Orders Fuzhou Fuan Leather Plastics Clothing Making Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-96/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2012 — Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 22 February 2012 — Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
   (Case C-96/12)
   2012/C 138/06
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Domingos Freitas and Maria Adília Monteiro Pinto

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

      Question referred

   In a road-traffic accident involving a motor vehicle and a minor riding a bicycle, in which the cyclist suffers personal and material damage, is the exclusion or reduction of compensation for such damage where the damage-causing event is due to the conduct of the cyclist contrary to [European Union] law and, in particular, to Article 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) inserted by Article 4 of the Fifth Directive (2005/14/EC) (4) (all relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice [of the European Union] concerning the circumstances in which compensation on the basis of compulsory motor vehicle insurance may be limited?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

      (4)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).


title: Action brought on 6 February 1996 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-18/96)

text:
No C 95/18          f EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 3 . 96
Action brought on 6 February 1996 by the Stichting                  that finding also on an explicit, reviewable Decision
Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van              concerning a legally valid application for exemption under
Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission                Article 85 ( 3 ). In the alternative, the applicants claim that
                of the European Communities                         the Commission has infringed the system established by
                        ( Case T-18/96 )                            Regulation No 17, in particular Articles 3 , 4, 6 and 9
                                                                    thereof.
                          ( 96/C 95/35 )
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                       Incorrect appraisal under Article 85 ( 1 ). The applicants
                                                                    claim that the certification system has not restricted
An action aigainst the Commission of the European                   competition, because the system, which operates objective
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   and non-discriminatory requirements, is open to each
Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1996             crane-hire business, including those from other Member
by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the           States . The system provides for the acceptance of equivalent
Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven , whose             guarantees by systems established by other private
registered offices are both at Culemborg ( Netherlands ),           institutions within the Community . The independence and
represented by M. van Empel , of the Amsterdam Bar, and             neutrality of the certifying institution is guaranteed . The
T. Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       SCK 's certification system is transparent: the SCK's method
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue                  of working is freely ascertainable by any person and the
Goethe .                                                            necessary requirements for certification are accessible to any
                                                                    crane-hire company . The rates established, which were
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         withdrawn following a judgment of a national court, were
                                                                    non-binding, recommended rates . The SCK is a certification
1 . declare the Decision (') to be non-existent, since its          body and not an undertaking for the purposes of Article 85 ,
    operative part states that Article 85 ( 1 ) is applicable and   because it does not carry on any economic activity, nor is it
    a fine is imposed in that regard on the SCK and on the          an association of undertakings . Intra-Community trade
    FNK respectively, but no Decision is adopted regarding          is not affected having regard to the regional nature of
    the applications made by the SCK and the FNK for                the activities . The 'prohibition on hiring' cranes from
    exemption under Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;              non-certificated undertakings , which is linked to the
2 . in the alternative, declare the Decision wholly void,           certification system, is the only way of ensuring the validity
    or as the case may be , annul the decision on the               and reliability of the system . Furthermore, it satisfied the
                                                                    requirements of European norm EN 45011 .
    abovementioned grounds;
3 . in the further alternative, annul the Decision for breach       In the recitals to the decision the Commission misapplied
    of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, Article 6 of the European       Article 85 ( 3 ): the certification system, the recommended
    Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, general           rates and the standard rates satisfy the requirements of
    principles of law and the duty to state the reasons upon        Article 85 ( 3 ): improving crane-hire, consumers allowed a
    which the Decision was based ( Article 190 of the EC            fair share of the benefits, indispensability, competition not
    Treaty );                                                       eliminated .
4 . in the further alternative, annul the Decision in so far as
    it imposes a fine upon the SCK and on the FNK;                  The reasonsing of the Decision is insufficient with regard to
                                                                    all those matters .
5 . order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                    Infringement of the rights of the defence : excessive length of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 the proceeding; failure to hear the parties before the
The Decision claims that the FNK operated a system of               Decision pursuant to Article 15 ( 6 ) of Regulation 17; refusal
recommended and standard rates and that the SCK                     to grant access to the file .
prohibited its member firms from hiring cranes from firms
which were not members (' inhuurverbod').                           (') Commission Decision of 29 November 1995 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.179 ,
Failure to adopt a Decision regarding Article 85 ( 3 ). There           34.202 , 216 — Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf en de
can be no legally valid finding regarding the applicability of          Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ) ( C(95 )
Article 85 of the EC Treaty, if the Commission fails to base            2952 final ).