title: Joined Cases T-415/05, T-416/05 and T-423/05: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Greece and Others v Commission (State aid — Aviation Sector — Aid linked to the restructuring and privatisation of the Greek national airline — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and requiring its recovery — Financial continuity between two companies — Identification of the effective recipient of aid for the purposes of its recovery — Criterion of the private operator — Compatibility of the aid with the common market — Obligation to state reasons for the decision)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Greece and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-415/05, T-416/05 and T-423/05) (1)

   (State aid - Aviation Sector - Aid linked to the restructuring and privatisation of the Greek national airline - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and requiring its recovery - Financial continuity between two companies - Identification of the effective recipient of aid for the purposes of its recovery - Criterion of the private operator - Compatibility of the aid with the common market - Obligation to state reasons for the decision)
   2010/C 301/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents) (Case T-415/05); Olympiakes Aerogrammes AE (Kallithéa, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer) (Case T-416/05); and Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, S. Mavroghenis, lawyers, S. Jordan and T. Soames, Solicitors, and D. Geradin, lawyer) (Case T-423/05)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Aeroporia Aigaiou Aeroporiki AE (Athens) (represented by: N. Keramidas and, in Case T-416/05, also by N. Korogiannakis, I. Dryllerakis and E. Dryllerakis, lawyers) (Cases T-416/05 and T-423/05)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 final of 14 September 2005 on State aid for Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE (C 11/2004 (ex NN 4/2003) — Olympic Airways — Restructuring and Privatisation)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 final of 14 September 2005 on State aid for Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE (C 11/2004 (ex NN 4/2003) — Olympic Airways — Restructuring and Privatisation);

               2.

               Annuls, in part, Article 1(2) of Decision C(2005) 2706 final insofar as it relates to the amount corresponding to the value of all the intangible assets entered in the conversion balance-sheet of Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies as goodwill, to the value of the aircraft transferred to Olympiakes Aerogrammes AE and to the revenue expected from the sale of two aircraft still entered in the balance-sheet of Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies;

               3.

               Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2005) 2706 final insofar as it relates to the measures in question in Article 1(1) and (2), to the extent that those provisions are annulled;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the actions;

               5.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case T-106/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BioVisc — Earlier international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)
   (Case T-106/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BioVisc - Earlier international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alcon Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf and R. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (Hennigsdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. von Welser, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 660/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Alcon Inc. and *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Alcon Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-466/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/25

         Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB
   (Case T-466/16)
   (2016/C 371/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision concerning the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31 December 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)

               The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which, in accordance with those legislative acts, are to be interpreted as meaning that they also give preference to auxiliary development business.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.
               In this regard, the applicant argues that if an interpretation of the implementing regulations in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not possible, the implementing regulations are, in that respect, unlawful. Consequently, the defendant’s decision based on those implementing regulations is also unlawful.

      (1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case C-8/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-8/07)
   (2007/C 69/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed into national law expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 272, p. 32.


title: Case C-72/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-72/17)
   (2017/C 144/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Isabelle Walkner

      Defendant: APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
               Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-352/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal
   (Case C-352/16)
   (2016/C 326/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Navarra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor

      Respondent: Joaquín Taberna Carvajal

      Question referred

   Is Royal Decree 1373/2003 compatible with Article 4(3) [TEU] and Article 101 TFEU, given that, even though that legal provision was enacted by the State, the courts may not review whether, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the amount of the tariff is excessive, this being a limitation of judicial review which, regardless of the importance and quality of the services, might constitute a restriction of free competition?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2002 in Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
14.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 219/17
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    1.     dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it asks the
European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and M. Wolfcarius),                          Court to order the defendant to classify the applicant at a higher
supported by Council of the European Union (Agent: A. Lopes                         grade.
Sabino): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision, contained in a letter of 5 September 2000, refusing                2.     dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded.
to grant the applicant financial support under the MEDIA II
programme and for damages to compensate for the harm
suffered as a result of that refusal, the Court of First Instance            3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2002,              (1 ) OJ No C 95 of 24.3.01.
in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant
       in addition to its own;
3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000                                                                              of 12 June 2002
                                                                             in Case T-9/01: Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Invalidity
                                                                                pension)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 219/44)
                            of 11 July 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
                                                                             In Case T-9/01: Michael Becker, an official on leave on
             Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                             personal grounds from the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                           (2002/C 219/43)                                   R. Nathan, lawyer, against Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfers)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision of the Court of
                    (Language of the case: German)                           Auditors of 13 November 2000 rejecting a request to be
                                                                             retired on grounds of invalidity — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                             and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
In Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier, an official at
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by G. Maier, lawyer, against Commission                1.     Dismisses the application.
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser et
M. B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 24 September 2000 concerning the                    2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 3, and of
the Commission’s decision of 24 September 1999 rejecting
the applicant’s complaint — the Court of First Instance (Fifth               (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh , Judges; D. Christensen, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-56/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2009 — Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2009 — Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-56/09)
   2009/C 90/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emiliano Zanotti

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Question referred

   Do the general principles of the Treaty and of Community law regarding full and effective judicial protection, equal treatment and freedom of movement preclude the application of Article 15(e) of Decree No 917 of the President of the Republic of 22 December 1986 (Consolidated Text of the Laws on Income Tax) and of Point 1.5.1 of Circular No 95 of the Ministry of Finance of 12 May 2000 and does the limitation, pursuant to those provisions, of the recognition of the costs referred to therein conflict with Community law?


title: Case C-185/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Lorenzo Ciampaglia v Sangita Masawan

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torre Annunziata (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Lorenzo Ciampaglia v Sangita Masawan
   (Case C-185/12)
   2012/C 235/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Torre Annunziata

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lorenzo Ciampaglia

      Defendant: Sangita Masawan
   By order of 3 May 2012, the Court of Justice declared that the reference for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible and removed the case from the register.


title: Case T-431/12: Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/37

         Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council
   (Case T-431/12)
   2012/C 366/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy); Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy); Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant'Agata sul Santerion, Italy); Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy); and Comercial Química Sarasa, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 626/2012 of 26 June 2012, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’) to the extent that the anti-dumping duty rates applied to Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory and Changmao Biochemical Engineering Company Co. Ltd have been unlawfully established on the grounds of manifest errors of assessment vitiating the measure, breaches of Articles 2 and 11(9) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 (2) (the ‘Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation’), violations of the applicants rights of defence and failure to sufficiently motivate the Contested Regulation;

               —

               Order the continuation of the Contested Regulation in force until the Council has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgment in compliance with Article 264 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by changing the methodology applied to establish analogue country normal value without sufficient justification to support changed circumstances and, in doing so, infringed Article 11(9) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by disregarding actual domestic sales prices in the analogue country and wrongly resorting to constructed values in breach of Articles 2(1), 2(2), 2(7)(a) and 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in using the US and Western European prices for benzene in place of the actual raw material costs in the country of production in breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and so arrived at a flawed value for the normal value applied in the review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment caused by distorting the costs of production in the constructed normal value that was reached and by using costs for raw materials that were not equivalent in breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant and the European Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to provide access to the information necessary to properly understand the methodology applied towards the establishment of the normal value and also failed to provide adequate motivations for key issues relating to the calculation of the analogue country normal value and the corresponding dumping margins applied thereby vitiating the Contested Regulation.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L182, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L343, p. 51), as amended.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement Directive 95/47/EC within the prescribed period — Use of standards for the transmission of television signals)

text:
22.12.2001              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 369/5
      (c)   may not establish in Germany a branch recognised as a            Article 29(1) and (2) of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
            construction undertaking if its staff is entrusted solely with   1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
            work on administration, marketing, planning, supervision         public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC
            and/or wages and salaries, but in order to be so recognised,     of 18 July 1989, must be interpreted as permitting an adjudicating
            such an establishment must employ on the German labour           authority which has chosen to award a contract to the most
            market workers who spend more than 50 % of the firm’s            economically advantageous tender to award that contract to the
            total working time on building sites,                            tenderer who has submitted the tender the ultimate cost of which, in
                                                                             the professional opinion of an expert, is likely to be the lowest,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its               provided that the equal treatment of tenderers has been ensured,
      obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,            which presupposes that the transparency and objectivity of the
      after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);                            procedure have been guaranteed and in particular that:
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.               —     this award criterion was clearly stated in the contract notice or
                                                                                contract documents; and
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                     —     the professional opinion is based in all essential points on
                                                                                objective factors regarded in good professional practice as
                                                                                relevant and appropriate to the assessment made.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 18 October 2001
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-19/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supreme Court of Ireland): SIAC Construction Ltd v
                                                                                of 11 October 2001
          County Council of the County of Mayo (1)
                                                                             in Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Public works contracts — Award to the most economically                                  ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
             advantageous tender — Award criteria)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                          (2001/C 369/07)                                    implement Directive 95/47/EC within the prescribed period
                                                                             — Use of standards for the transmission of television
                                                                                signals)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/08)
In Case C-19/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between SIAC
Construction Ltd and County Council of the County of Mayo                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
— on the interpretation of Article 29 of Council Directive                                      in the European Court Reports)
71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 682), as amended by
Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 (OJ 1989                        In Case C-254/00: Commission of the European Communities
L 210, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       (Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,               M.A Fierstra, and subsequently by J. van Bakel) — application
L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                        for a declaration that by failing to bring into force or to
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                 communicate all of the laws, regulations and administrative
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October                provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                 the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.12.2001
1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
signals (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51) the Kingdom of the Netherlands               19 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President                 A directive cannot, by itself, independently of any national law
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La                        enacted by a Member State in order to implement it, have the effect
Pergola, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                    of establishing or rendering more serious the criminal liability of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which                persons who act in contravention of its provisions.
it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 du 18.3.2000.
1.    Declares that by failing to bring into force and to communicate
      all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use
      of standards for the transmission of television signals the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive.                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                            Bielefeld by order of that court of 24 July 2001 in the
                                                                            case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS Anker
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs.
                                                                                GmbH
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                                            (Case C-349/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/10)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      Court), Bielefeld of 24 July 2001, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 17 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Second Chamber)                                    in the case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS
                                                                            Anker GmbH on the following questions:
                      of 19 September 2001                                  1.    Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on
                                                                                the establishment of a European Works Council or a
in Case C-18/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti): Criminal proceedings                      munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
                   against Maurizio Perino (1)                                    of informing and consulting employees, in particular
                                                                                Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that an undertaking established
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive                             in the United Kingdom, which is regarded as the central
75/442/EEC — Storage of waste prior to a recovery operation                       management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
   — Invoking a directive in order to oppose an individual)                       and Article 4(3) of the directive, or an undertaking
                                                                                established in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which
                                                                                constitutes the central management of the controlling
                          (2001/C 369/09)                                         undertaking under Article 2(1)(e) and Article 3(1) of the
                                                                                directive, is obliged to provide another undertaking
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               resident in the Federal Republic of Germany belonging to
                                                                                the same group of undertakings with information on
                                                                                undertakings and establishments belonging to the group
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                of undertakings and on their legal form and represen-
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                tation arrangements and the average total number of
                                                                                employees and their distribution across the Member Sates
                                                                                and the undertakings?
In Case C-18/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti, Italy, for a                    2.    If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before                     affirmative: Does the obligation to provide information
that court against Maurizio Perino — on the interpretation of                     also encompass the names of the employees’ represen-
point R 13 of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                        tation and their representatives who are to participate, on
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by                       behalf of the employees of the undertaking or the
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991                            undertakings controlled by it, in the establishment of a
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                              European Works Council?
24 may 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive
75/442 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32) — the Court (Second                           (1) OJ L 254, p. 64.
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,


title: Case C-561/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — National legislation providing for non-application to transfers of undertakings in critical difficulties )

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-561/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - National legislation providing for non-application to transfers of undertakings in ‘critical difficulties’)
   2009/C 180/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: R. Adam, Agent, and by W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — National legislation providing for the non-application of Articles 3 and 4 of the directive to transfers of undertakings in a ‘situation of crisis’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 where an undertaking is in critical difficulties within the meaning of subparagraph (c) of the fifth paragraph of Article 2 of Law No 675 of 12 August 1977 so that the rights of employees set out in Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses are not safeguarded in the event of the transfer of an undertaking which has been declared to be in critical difficulties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-172/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Parliament to pay those costs.
The applicants in the present case, seek the annulment of the
Parliament's decision amending the method used for the calcu-
lation of annual travel costs to Greece.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and arguments submitted by the applicants in
support of their action are similar to those put forward by the            The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                          ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
                                                                           travel expenses to Greece.
(1) OJ 2002 C 247, p. 17.
(2) OJ 2003 C 101, p. 40.                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                           applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101 26.04.03, p. 40.
Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Grigorios Gian-
    noutsos and Others against the European Parliament
                          (Case T-168/03)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux
                                                                                against Commission of the European Communities
                          (2003/C 184/89)
                                                                                (Case T-172/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/90)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                                  (Language of the case: French)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
13 May 2003 by Grigorios Giannoutsos, residing in Luxem-
bourg, and 4 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
                                                                           Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           address for service in Luxembourg.
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
      annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the             —     annul the Commission decision not to include the appli-
      journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for desti-               cant's name on the list of officials promoted to grade 2
      nations in the Pelopponese;                                                for the 2002 promotion exercise, its decision being
                                                                                apparent from the publication of administrative notice
                                                                                No 9-2002 of 14 August 2002
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from               Pleas in law and main arguments
      Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
      nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;       In support of her application, the applicant argues breach of
                                                                           the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and infringe-
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                 ment of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                              principle of equal treatment, the principle that officials should
                                                                           have reasonable career prospects and the principle of good
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                 administration and sound management.
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of
      which is sought, together with legal interest;


title: Case T-661/16: Action brought on 19 September 2016 — Credito Fondiario v CRU

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/59

         Action brought on 19 September 2016 — Credito Fondiario v CRU
   (Case T-661/16)
   (2016/C 402/71)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant Credito Fondiario SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, F. Iacovone, S. Frazzani and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Comitato di risoluzione unico

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the first and second decision of the Single Resolution Board;

               —

               declare Article 5(1)(f) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63, on which the contested decisions are based, incompatible with the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and legal certainty recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               declare Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63, on which the contested decisions are based, incompatible with the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and legal certainty recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               declare Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63, on which the contested decisions are based, incompatible with the principle of freedom to conduct a business recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns decisions of the executive session of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 (first decision) and SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13 of 20 May 2016 (second decision) which determine, in so far as concerns the applicant, the ex ante contribution provided for by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to notify the first and second decision

                           —

                           The Banca d’Italia did not notify the applicant of the two decisions adopted by the Board, as required by Article 5 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1), but merely communicated the amount of the payment thereby undermining the applicant’s right to bring proceedings in time. The Board did not take due care as regards the notification.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU for failure to state reasons and infringement of the rule audi alteram partem in respect of decisions relating to ex ante contributions

                           —

                           The contested decisions do not explain how the ex ante contribution was in fact calculated, thereby prejudicing the effective application of the review of the legality and validity of the decision by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law: incorrect application of Article 5(1)(f) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63.

                           —

                           The ex ante contribution required of Credito Fondiario is disproportionate to the institution’s risk profile, and is the result of an incorrect assessment of the institution’s liabilities.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 4(1) and Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63. Incorrect assessment of the risk profile of Credito Fondiario.

                           —

                           On 31 December 2014, Credito Fondiario had a low risk profile, on the basis of parameters laid down in Article 4(1) and Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63. The contribution calculated by the Board is that of an institution with a high risk profile and is the result of the Board’s failure to take into consideration the criteria for defining and reducing risk laid down in those articles.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment

                           —

                           Article 5(1)(f) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63 and Annex I thereto infringe the principle of equal treatment, in that they provide for discriminatory treatment in the sector concerned.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality and legal certainty.

                           —

                           Because the decisions do not take into account the applicant’s lower risk profile, they impose an ex ante contribution corresponding to an institution with a high risk profile, thereby infringing the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom to conduct a business

                           —

                           By imposing stricter requirements than those laid down by European banking legislation and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1), Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63, as regards the institution’s risk assessment, infringes the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and freedom to conduct a business by introducing discretionary elements into the calculation of the ex ante contribution.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 22 May 1997 in the case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, joined party: Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-211/97)

text:
No C 228/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7 . 97
        establishment of the CIS, to rely on Article 235              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial
         (quod non), nevertheless, the legal basis of the             gericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 22 May
        provisions relating to mutual assistance on request           1997 in the case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt
         and spontaneous assistance should have been                       fur Arbeit, joined party: Federal Republic of Germany
        Article 100a . In Case C-300/89, the Court of                                           ( Case C-211/97)
        Justice held that an act may not have a dual legal
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 16 )
         basis where one of those bases corresponds to the
        cooperation procedure ( Article 189b of the EC
        Treaty) and the other requires unanimity, inasmuch            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         as that would undermine the very purpose of the              European Communities by an order of the Landessozial
        cooperation procedure, thereby divesting it of its            gericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour Court, Lower
         substance,                                                   Saxony ) of 22 May 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 4 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
     — the Regulation lays down the organizational
                                                                      case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit,
        measures needed for the requisite cooperation
         between them and the Commission, with a view to
                                                                      joined party: Federal Republic of Germany, on the
                                                                      following questions:
         ensuring the functioning of the internal market,
     — no other specific legal basis exists in the Treaty;            ( a ) Does the option by a person employed by a consular
        this would appear to be confirmed by the fact that                   post under the first sentence of Article 16 ( 2 ) of
         the Council has had recourse to Article 235                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 H to be subject to the
         thereof.                                                            legislation of the sending Member State of which he is
                                                                             a national also have effect for his spouse, not
(') OJ No L 82, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .                                       employed by the consular service, who is also a
                                                                             national of the sending Member State,
                                                                             or
                                                                             is the legislation of the sending Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge
richt Köln by order of that court of 6 May 1997 in the                       applicable to the spouse only if she herself also opts to
                                                                             be subject to it ?
case of Haydar Akman against the Oberkreisdirektor des
Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises, Joined party: Vertreter des
    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln              ( b ) If the option by the national who is in the consular
                                                                             service also has effect for his spouse, does the
                         ( Case C-210/97 )
                                                                             effectiveness of the option to be subject to the
                           ( 97/C 228/15 )                                   legislation of the sending Member State presuppose
                                                                             the consent or other cooperation of the spouse who is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       also affected thereby ?
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge
richt Koln (Administrative Court, Cologne ) of 6 May                  (') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Haydar Akman against
the Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises
( Chief Administrative Officer of the administrative district
Rheinisch-Bergischer-Kreis ), Joined party: Vertreter des             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret by
offentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Koln                  order of 3 June 1997 in the case of Centros Limited v.
( Representative of the Public Interest before the                                       Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen
Administrative Court, Cologne ), on the following
question:                                                                                ( Case C-212/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 17 )
For a child of a Turkish worker to have the right to
extension of his residence permit, which, according to the
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-355/93 Eroglu
                                                                      European Communities by order of 3 June 1997 from the
v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg ('), arises from the second
                                                                      Hojesteret ( Danish Supreme Court), which was received at
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                      the Court Registry on 5 June 1997, for a preliminary
EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
the Association, must the employed parent still be resident           ruling in the case of Centros Limited v. Erhvervs- og
                                                                      Selskabsstyrelsen ( Trade and Companies Board) on the
in Germany, or even still be in an employment
                                                                      following question:
relationship, at the time when the child has completed his
course of vocational training, or is that provision
sufficiently complied with if the Turkish parent was legally          Is it compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty, in
employed at an earlier time for at least three years ?                conjunction with Articles 58 and 56 thereof, to refuse
                                                                      registration of a subsidiary of a company which has its
O [ 1994] ECR 1-5113 .                                                registered office in another Member State and has been
                                                                      lawfully founded with company capital of £ 100
                                                                       ( approximately Dkr 1 000 ) and established under the


title: Case F-6/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 June 2016 — FF v EASA

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 June 2016 — FF v EASA
   (Case F-6/15) (1)

   (2016/C 326/62)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-583/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014  — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
   (Case C-583/14)
   (2015/C 096/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?

               2.

               Should Article 20(2)(a) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?


title: Case F-28/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Wandschneider v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Assessment — Career development report — Assessment year 2004 — Action for annulment — Grounds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Wandschneider v Commission
   (Case F-28/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Assessment - Career development report - Assessment year 2004 - Action for annulment - Grounds - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2008/C 22/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers, then by G. Vandersanden, C. Ronzi and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the assessment year 2004 and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121 of 20.5.2006, p. 19.


title: Case T-87/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Eurofast v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/40

         Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Eurofast v Commission
   (Case T-87/16)
   (2016/C 136/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s offsetting decision of 17 December 2015;

               —

               declare the debt claimed by the Commission against Eurofast under the ASSET contract to be unfounded;

               —

               declare that all expenditure in respect of the ASSET project, corresponding to EUR 507 574, is eligible and order the Commission to confirm that the funding, as specified in the Grant Agreement, corresponding to EUR 365 639, is lawful;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 69 923,68 under the EKSISTENZ contract, plus late-payment interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay contractual compensation;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, respectively, in support of its application for annulment of the offsetting decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 and in support of its application for a declaration that the contested contractual debt does not exist.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Article II.21 of Annex II to the FP7 Grant agreement (General conditions), the principle of good faith laid down in Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual rules under the General Conditions of the ASSET grant contract and a manifest error of assessment of the rules relating to eligible costs.


title: Case C-511/07: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-511/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/63)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-512/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy
   (Case C-512/11)
   2011/C 347/35
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Työtuomioistuin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry

      Defendants: Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

      Question referred

   Do Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation and Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding preclude national provisions of a collective agreement, or the interpretation of those provisions, under which an employee moving from unpaid child-care leave to maternity leave is not paid remuneration during maternity leave in accordance with the collective agreement?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.


title: Case T-432/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/13

         Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-432/11)
   2011/C 290/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing that decision which keep the applicant on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures, and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the applicant complains that the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular his right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR and, lastly, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case C-306/08: Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/36

         Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-306/08)
   (2008/C 223/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, in awarding the Integrated Action Programmes in accordance with Law 6/1994 of 15 November, regulating development activities in the Valencian Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and particularly Articles 1, 6(6), 11, 12 and Title II of Capital IV thereof (Articles 24 to 29),
               and that, in awarding the Integrated Action Programmes in accordance with Law 16/2005, Valencian development law, implemented by Decree 67/2006 of the Region of Valencia of 12 May, establishing the Regulation of Town Planning and Management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6, 24, 30, 31(4)(a), 48(2) and 53 of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission states that the awarding of the Integrated Action Programmes (IAP), an urban development measure established by Law 6/1994 of 15 November, Valencian Law on development activities (‘LRAU’) and its successor, Law 16/205, Valencian development law (‘LUV’) relates to public works contracts which should be awarded in accordance with Directive 93/37/EC and Directive 2004/18/EC. In other words, the Commission affirms that the IAP are public works contracts awarded by local bodies which include the carrying out of public infrastructure works by urban developers chosen by the local authorities.
   The Commission considers that the LUV infringes the Community public procurement directives in various aspects, in relation, inter alia, to the privileged position of the first bidder, the experience of bidders in similar contracts, the provision of alternatives to the proposal of the first bidder ‘in open envelope’, the regulation of variants, the criteria for awarding IAP contracts, the possibility of amending the contract after it has been awarded (for example, the possibility of increasing development fees) and the regulation of cases of incomplete execution of the contract by the bidder to which the contract has been awarded. Some of those infringements concern both the LRAU and the LUV, and others just the LUV.

      (1)   OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.

      (2)   OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-135/14: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2016 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark kicktipp — Earlier national word mark KICKERS — Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 98(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2016 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)
   (Case T-135/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark kicktipp - Earlier national word mark KICKERS - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 98(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 106/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cantaluppi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Società Italiana Calzature Srl and Kicktipp GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kicktipp GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Società Italiana Calzature Srl to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-185/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Latchways plc, Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV, Consolidated Nederland BV (Directive 89/106/EEC — Construction products — Directive 89/686/EEC — Personal protective equipment — Decision 93/465/EEC — CE marking — Anchor devices for protection against falls from a height when working on roofs — Standard EN 795)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Latchways plc, Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV, Consolidated Nederland BV
   (Case C-185/08) (1)

   (Directive 89/106/EEC - Construction products - Directive 89/686/EEC - Personal protective equipment - Decision 93/465/EEC - CE marking - Anchor devices for protection against falls from a height when working on roofs - Standard EN 795)
   2010/C 346/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Latchways plc, Eurosafe Solutions BV

      Defendants: Kedge Safety Systems BV, Consolidated Nederland BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12), Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18) and the Council Decision of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 23) — Permanent anchor devices for protection from falls from a height in the construction industry — European standard EN 795

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of EN 795 relating to Class A 1 anchor devices are not covered by Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003; they do not, therefore, fall within the framework of European Union law and, accordingly, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to interpret them.

               2.

               Anchor devices, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are not intended to be held or worn by their user are not covered by Directive 89/686, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, either in themselves or on account of the fact that they are intended to be connected to personal protective equipment.

               3.

               Anchor devices, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are part of the construction work to which they are secured in order to ensure the safety in use or in the functioning (operation) of the roof of that work are covered by Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003.

               4.

               Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives, precludes the option of affixing the CE marking to a product that does not fall within the scope of the directive under which it is affixed, even if that product satisfies the technical requirements defined by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-240/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/11

         Action brought on 29 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-240/13)
   2013/C 189/21
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations to transpose Article 2(21), Article 9(5), (7) and (12), Article 10(5),the first sentence of Article 11(1), Article 11(5)(a) and (b), Article 16(2) and (3), the second, fourth and fifth sentences of Article 26(2)(c), Article 36, Article 37(1)(e), (f), (i), (k) and (p), Article 37(8), the second sentence of Article 37(10), Article 38(3), Article 40(3), and the fifth indent of point 1(a) and point 1(d), (f), (i) and (j) of Annex I of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for transposition of the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of the directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Estonia, for breaching the obligation to notify the measures transposing the directive, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 5 068,8 a day from the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Case C-273/03: Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 184/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        2.8.2003
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
             European Communities against Ireland
                           (Case C-256/03)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 184/49)                               The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by the               (1) OJ L 181 of 20.07.2000, p. 65.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Messrs Xavier Lewis and Michel van Beek, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-135/00 (1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                          (2003/C 184/51)
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating
      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (1) Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in        By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      particular its Article 9 and under the Treaty establishing         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      the European Community.                                            register of Case C-135/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS-Ente Nazionale per le Strade,
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Lauro Cantieri Valsesia Spa v Consorzio Cooperative Costru-
                                                                         zioni.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 9 April 2002.
(1) OJ L 94, 09.04.1999, p. 24.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-225/00 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/52)
Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of                      By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             Luxembourg                                  register of Case C-225/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): Cavalleri Ottavio SpA v ANAS —
                           (Case C-273/03)                               Ente Nazionale per le Strade, Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA.
                           (2003/C 184/50)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-243/00 (1)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the                                        (2003/C 184/53)
Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or         By order of 7 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      tive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the              register of Case C-243/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the                 by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench
      laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Secretary of State for
      civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and        Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress.
      amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC
      (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) and, in any event,
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, the                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case C-658/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision 2011/640/CFSP — Legal basis — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Article 37 TEU — International agreement relating exclusively to the CFSP — Second subparagraph of Article 218(6) TFEU — Obligation to inform the Parliament immediately and fully — Article 218(10) TFEU — Maintenance of effects)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-658/11) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Decision 2011/640/CFSP - Legal basis - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Article 37 TEU - International agreement relating exclusively to the CFSP - Second subparagraph of Article 218(6) TFEU - Obligation to inform the Parliament immediately and fully - Article 218(10) TFEU - Maintenance of effects))
   2014/C 292/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Troosters and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, G. Étienne, M. Bishop and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and E. Belliard, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, and by D. Beard QC and G. Facenna, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer;

               2)

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/640 be maintained in force;

               3)

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

               4)

               Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-24/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/46/EC — Company law — Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 September 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-24/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2006/46/EC - Company law - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts of companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 317/22
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.03.2010.