title: Case T-95/02: Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Michael Hohenbichler against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/55
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Michael Hohen-                        Action brought on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena Lebebef-
bichler against the Commission of the European Com-                      Caponi against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                                 munities
                          (Case T-95/02)                                                           (Case T-98/02)
                        (2002/C 144/108)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/109)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Michael                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Hohenbichler, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël             European Communities on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena
Louis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                Lebedef-Caponi, of Senningerberg, Luxembourg, represented
                                                                         by Gille Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lation of the number of years of pensionable service
      under the Staff Regulations to be taken into account
      pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII thereto;                   —     annul the applicant’s staff report for the period 1995 to
                                                                               1997;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     rule on costs; the expenses and fees should be borne by
                                                                               the defendant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, an official of the defendant
institution, is contesting the way in which the appointing
authority has calculated the number of years of pensionable
service to be taken into account in the context of the transfer          The applicant who is an official at the Commission objects to
to the Community pension scheme of all the pension rights                the dismissal of her claim for annulment of her staff report for
acquired by him prior to his entry into the service of the               the period 1995 to 1997.
Communities.
                                                                         In support of her action she relies on an infringement of the
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of:          last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         infringement of the second paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                         Framework Agreement governing relations between the Com-
—     Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;              mission of the unions and professional organisations and
                                                                         infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 15
                                                                         of the Framework Agreement. She argues that some of the
—     the general provisions for the implementation of
                                                                         findings are not justified and that there are various errors and
      Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         omissions in the staff report. In addition, she argues that she
                                                                         suffered psychological harassment during the time when she
—     the principle of equal treatment.                                  was acting as a staff representative.


title: Case T-160/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU — Legal certainty — Non-arbitrariness — Breach of fundamental rights)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-160/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU - Legal certainty - Non-arbitrariness - Breach of fundamental rights))
   (2016/C 251/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented initially by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, L. Christie and C. Brodie, and subsequently by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), or annulment of that provision in so far as it does not provide for an exception that applies in the applicant’s case, and for a declaration that Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) is inapplicable.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bank Mellat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 20 June 1995, in the case of The Queen against the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others (Case C-241/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/ 15
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event by                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     failing to communicate, the laws, regulations and                 in Case C-234/95 ( 2 ); the period prescribed for
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                implementation of the Directive expired on 1 July 1992 .
     Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (*) of 20 July 1993
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man         (') OJ No L 189 , 20 . 7. 1990 , p. 17 .
     and    the   environment      of   substances   notified  in      ( 2 ) See page 13 of this Official Journal .
     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that Directive and under the EC Treaty,
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de
                                                                       Metz, by judgment of that court of 3 1 May 1 995 , in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Remy Schmit, the civil parties claiming
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La
                                                                                Mancusa
Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                                Case C-240/95 )
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, means that Member                                           95/C 229/32 )
States are under an obligation to comply with the time limits
laid down in those directives for their transposition. On the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 31 October                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel
1993 , the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions             Metz ( Court of Appeal ), Metz, of 31 May 1995 , which was
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the             received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1995 , for a
form of order sought by the Commission .                               preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Remy
                                                                       Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert
(') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa, on the following
                                                                       question :
                                                                       Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty preclude national
                                                                        legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles,
                                                                       which causes the administrative authorities and traders of a
                                                                        Member State to consider that, in the case of two motor
Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the                 vehicles of the same model and make, placed on the market
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                    on the same date after 1 July , one vehicle may be held out as
                         ( Case C-239/95 )
                                                                        falling under the model-year date of the following calendar
                                                                        year whereas the other, manufactured in another Member
                            95/C 229/31 )                               State and the subject of parallel importation, may not ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                   20 June 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte:
                                                                                Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others
 The Commission claims that the Court should :                                                    Case C-241 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/33 )
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative measures needed to comply with Council            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 ( 1 ) on the                 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating          Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 20 June 1995 , which
       to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of             was received at the Court Registry on 10 July 1995 , for a
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
       Directive, in particular Article 16 ;                             Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte :
                                                                         Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others, on the following
 2 . in the alternative, declare that, in any event, by failing to       questions :
       inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           1 . Is Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )
       under those provisions;                                                No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                              rules for the application of the Council Regulation ( EC )
 3 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          No 130/94 with regard to the import arrangements for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/ 16             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 9 . 95
      frozen beef falling within CN code 0202 and products                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court,
      falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (*) invalid and                   Dublin, by decision of that court of 5 April 1995 , in the case
      contrary to EC Law to the extent that it required                   of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
      operators seeking to qualify for 1994 quota referred to                    Commissioners and the Department of Finance
      in that sub-Article on the basis of their past beef exports                                    Case C-243/95 )
      to have exported at least 150 tonnes in the previous year,
      rather than 110 tonnes as had been required in 1993 ? In                                       ( 95/C 229/34 )
      particular, is Article 1 ( 2 ) invalid and contrary to EC law
      as :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by a decision of the Labour Court,
      ( a ) exceeding the powers conferred upon the
                                                                          Dublin of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
             Commission by Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                          Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
             No 130/94 of 24 January 1994 opening and
                                                                          of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
             providing for the administration of a Community
                                                                          Commissioners and the Department of Finance, on the
             tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals
                                                                          following questions :
             falling within CN code 0202 and products falling
             within CN code 0206 29 91 (2 );
                                                                          In circumstances in which far more female workers than
      ( b ) infringing the principle of proportionality;                  male workers spend part of their working lives in a
                                                                          job-sharing capacity:
      ( c ) infringing      the       principle    of     legitimate
             expectations;
                                                                          (a ) Does a prima-facie case of indirect discrimination arise
                                                                                where job-sharing workers who convert to full-time
      ( d ) infringing the duty to give adequate reasons                        work are given credit for incremental progression on
             pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and/or                   the scale of pay for full-time staff by reference to actual
                                                                                time worked such that, while the benefits awarded to
      ( e ) having been adopted without proper consultation                     them are fully pro-rated to those awarded to staff who
             of the Beef Management Committee, contrary to                      have always worked full-time, they are placed at lower
             Article 4 of Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 and                       points on the full-time scale than comparators who are
             Article 27 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 of the                  in all respects similar to them except that they have
             Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                              worked continuously on a full-time basis ?
             organization of the market in beef and veal ( 3 )?
                                                                                In other words, is the principle of equal pay, as defined
                                                                                in Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975
2 . Is Article 2 (2 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 214/94 invalid                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      and contrary to EC law, to the extent that it excludes                    relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
      companies arising from mergers where each part has                        for men and women ( J ), contravened, if employees,
      rights pursuant to Article 1 ( 2 ) of that Regulation from                who convert from job-sharing to full-time work,
      the opportunity to cumulate their past trading                            regress on the incremental scale and hence on their
      performance ? In particular, does Article 2 ( 2 ) violate:                salary scale, due to the application by the employer of
                                                                                the criterion of service calculated by time worked in a
       ( a ) the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as                  job ?
             companies deriving their rights from Article 1 ( 1 ) of
             that Regulation can merge and cumulate their past
             trading performance for the purpose of obtaining             ( b ) If so, does the employer have to provide special
                                                                                justification for recourse to the criterion of service,
             quota ; whereas companies deriving their rights
             from Article 1 (2 ) cannot; and/or                                 defined as actual time worked, in awarding incremental
                                                                                credit .
       ( b ) the guarantee referred to in the second recital to
             Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 of continuing access to           (c ) If so, can a practice of incremental progression by
             quota by all interested operators within the                       reference to actual time worked be objectively justified
              Community ?                                                       by reference to factors other than the acquisition of a
                                                                                particular level of skill and experience over time ?
(') OJ No L 27, 1.2 . 1994, p . 46 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 22 , 27. 1 . 1994, p . 3 .                                   (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 148 , 28 . 6 . 1968 , p . 24 .


title: Case C-423/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 September 2012 — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 September 2012 — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-423/12)
   2012/C 355/19
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flora May Reyes

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, on certain conditions, can require a direct descendant who is 21 years old or older — in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a family member under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 — to have tried to obtain employment, help with supporting himself from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise support himself but that that has not been possible?

               2.

               In interpreting the term ‘dependent’ in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38, does any significance attach to the fact that a relative — due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health — is deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intends to start work in the Member State, which would mean that the conditions for him to be regarded as a relative who is a dependant under the provision are no longer met?

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


title: Case C-244/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2016 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Commission

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2016 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Commission
   (Case C-244/16 P)
   (2016/C 260/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 February 2016 in Case T-296/15, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. (IQV) v European Commission;

               —

               declare as admissible IQV’s application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408; (1)

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order to rule on the substance of Case T-296/15;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               (i)

               The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that the contested regulation is a regulatory act which includes, as regards the applicant, implementing measures for the purposes of Article 263(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               (ii)

               The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that the inadmissibility of IQV’s action against the contested regulation did not deprive it of an effective judicial remedy.

               (iii)

               The General Court erred in law in holding, in the order under appeal, that IQV was not individually affected by the contested regulation.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ L 67, p. 18).


title: Case C-385/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction of input VAT — National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-385/09) (1)

   (Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction of input VAT - National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)
   2010/C 346/30
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nidera Handelscompagnie BV

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės — Interpretation of Articles 167, 168(1)(a) and 178(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation reserving the right to deduct VAT to taxable persons registered for VAT in that Member State — Right to deduct VAT excluded for goods and services acquired by the taxable person before his registration for VAT in the Member State concerned if those goods and services have already been used for the purposes of the taxable person’s transactions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person for VAT purposes who meets the substantive conditions for the right of deduction, in accordance with the provisions of that directive, and who identifies himself as a taxable person for VAT purposes within a reasonable period following the completion of transactions giving rise to that right of deduction, from being denied the possibility of exercising that right by national legislation which prohibits the deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods if the taxpayer was not identified as a taxable person for VAT purposes before using those goods in his taxable activity.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-26/99)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/11
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of
     Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive                          animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1), the
     85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of                  Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     the effects of certain public and private projects on the            under the EC Treaty and that directive.
     environment.
                                                                     2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case-20/1999 (2).
Acording to the German legislative provisions referred to            (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
in 1., it is possible, in the circumstances described therein,       (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
to implement projects relating to road construction and
airports which are subject, as projects covered by Annex I
to the directive, to assessment of their effects on the
environment, without any procedure for the official
approval of the plans Ð and thus without any assessment
of their effects on the environment. Under the German
legislation, assessment of environmental effects may be              Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
dispensed with where the public interest is not affected             the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and where, moreover, the rights of third parties are not                                         Luxembourg
affected or where a form of contract has been concluded                                        (Case C-26/99)
with the legal owners of the land with a view to the
implementation of the projects in question. By contrast,                                       (1999/C 86/22)
the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC are not mentioned
in the national legislation; nor does that legislation take
into account the requirements laid down in the directive.            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.                                       Communities on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                                                                     Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                             Austria                                 that the Court should:
                         (Case C-25/99)
                         (1999/C 86/21)                              Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                          Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                      related to exposure to biological agents at work (1), the
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  obligations under the EC Treaty; and
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     Ð Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189(3)
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           and Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty requires Member States
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
to adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives            by the Commission of the European Communities,
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               represented by Mr Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
expiry of the period prescribed for so doing. That period,         Adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 95/30/EC,          seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Grand Duchy                exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary              service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la
provisions.                                                        Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 41.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that:
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of
     Spain against the Council of the European Union                   1. by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland, with the
                                                                           description and indication of fineness which they
                        (Case C-27/99)                                     bear in their country of origin, of articles made
                        (1999/C 86/23)                                     from precious metals (gold, silver or platinum)
                                                                           lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                           Member States but not complying with the Irish
                                                                           provisions concerning standards of fineness, or by
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        with those for the appropriate lower official Irish
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of                           standard of fineness;
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                               2. by requiring articles made from precious metals
                                                                           (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to bear a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sponsor's mark indicative of the maker, worker or
                                                                           dealer in such articles, registered by the Company
                                                                           which appoints the Assay Master by which these
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to                       articles are intended to be struck with the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 48/99 (1) of 18 December                    approved hallmark, when these articles already
    1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish                bear a sponsor's mark conforming to the
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and                       legislation of the Member State of origin;
    certain conditions under which they may be fished;
                                                                       3. by requiring articles made from precious metals
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                        (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, which
                                                                           have been lawfully struck in another Member State
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                       with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                guarantees of independence, and which offers
                                                                           appropriate information to consumers, to bear an
                                                                           approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master
(1) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.                                              which is appointed by the Wardens and
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.                                            Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin;
                                                                       4. by establishing differences between approved
                                                                           hallmarks struck on articles manufactured in
                                                                           Ireland and those hallmarks of the same type
                                                                           struck on articles imported from other Member
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of                     States,
         the European Communities against Ireland
                        (Case C-30/99)
                                                                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation under
                        (1999/C 86/24)                                 Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                       Community;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 1999             Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-39/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris): Syndicat français de l'Express International (SFEI) and Others v. La Poste and Others (State aid - Jurisdiction of national courts when the matter is also pending before the Commission - Definition of State aid - Consequences of infringement of the last sentence of Article 93 (3) of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 336/8           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, L. Hewlett, Administrator, has                    the product inside the packaging is not indirectly
given a judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it rules :                          affected, for example, by the fact that the external or
                                                                              inner packaging of the repackaged product or new
                                                                              user instructions or information omits certain
1 . The reliance by a trade mark owner on his rights as                       important information or gives inaccurate
    owner in order to prevent an importer from marketing a                    information, or the fact that an extra article inserted
    product which was put on the market in another                            in the packaging by the importer and designed for
    Member State by the owner or with his consent where                       the ingestion and dosage of the product does not
    that importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed                    comply with the method of use and the doses
    the trade mark without the owner 's authorization, is to                  envisaged by the manufacturer,
    be assessed on the basis of the combined provisions of
    national trade mark law and Article 7 of the first                     — the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the
    Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988                        product and the name of the manufacturer in print
    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating                     such that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a
    to trade marks, interpreted in the light of Article 36 of                 normal degree of attentiveness, would be in a
    the EC Treaty.                                                            position to understand; similarly, the origin of an
                                                                              extra article from a source other than the trade-mark
2 . Save in the circumstances defined in Article 7 (2),                       owner must be indicated in such a way as to dispel
                                                                              any impression that the trade-mark owner is
    Article 7 (1 ) of Directive 89/104/EEC precludes the
    owner of a trade mark from relying on his rights as                       responsible for it; however, it is not necessary to
    owner to prevent an importer from marketing a product                     indicate that the repackaging was carried out
    which was put on the market in another Member State                       without the authorization of the trade-mark
                                                                              owner,
    by the owner or with his consent, even if that importer
    repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark to
    it without the owner 's authorization .                                — the presentation of the repackaged product is not
                                                                              such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the
                                                                              trade mark and of its owner; thus, the packaging
3 . Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/EEC must be                             must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy;
    interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may                      and
    legitimately oppose the further marketing of a
    pharmaceutical product where the importer has                          — the importer gives notice to the trade-mark owner
    repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark                        before the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on
    unless :                                                                  demand, supplies him with a specimen of the
                                                                               repackaged product.
    — its is established that reliance on trade mark rights by
        the owner in order to oppose the marketing of                (>) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
        repackaged particulars under that trade mark would           ( 2 ) OJ No L 40, 1989 , p . 1 .
        contribute to the artificial partitioning of the
        markets between Member States; such is the case, in
        particular, where the owner has put an identical
        pharmaceutical product on the market in several
        Member States in various forms of packaging, and
        the repackaging carried out by the importer is                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        necessary in order to market the product in the                                       of 11 July 1996
        Member State of importation, and is carried out in
        such conditions that the original condition of the           in Case C-39/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
        product cannot be affected by it; that condition does        Tribunal de Commerce, Paris ): Syndicat fran^ais de
        not, however, imply that it must be established that         l'Express International ( SFEI ) and Others v. La Poste and
        the trade mark owner deliberately sought to                                                Others ( 1 )
        partition the markets between Member States,                  (State aid —Jurisdiction ofnational courts when the matter
                                                                     is also pending before the Commission — Definition ofState
    — it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the             aid — Consequences ofinfringement of the last sentence of
        original condition of the product inside the                                 Article 93 (3) of the EC Treaty)
        packaging; such is the case, in particular, where the                                  ( 96/C 336/16 )
        importer has merely carried out operations involving
         no risk of the product being affected, such as, for                          (Language of the case: French)
        example, the removal of blister packs, flasks, phials,
        ampoules or inhalers from their original external
        packaging and their replacement in new external               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        packaging, the fixing of self-stick labels on the inner                 published in the European Court Reports)
        packaging of the product, the addition to the
        packaging of new user instructions or information,            In Case C-39/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
         or the insertion of an extra article; it is for the          Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce,
         national court to verify that the original condition of      Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/9
before that court between Syndicat fran^ais de l'Express                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
International ( SFEI ) and Others and La Poste and Others on                                of 11 July 1996
the interpretation of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty, the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,            in Joined Cases C-71/94 , C-72/94 and C-73/94 ( references
C. N. Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet, and G. Hirsch ( Presidents       for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof):
                                                                    Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG and
of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ),
J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.                                           Others ( 1 )
Jacobs, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                    (Repackaging oftrade-markedproducts — Article 36 ofthe
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                        EC Treaty)
judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it ruled :                                                 ( 96/C 336/ 17 )
1 . A national court, seised of a request that it should draw                       (Language of the case: German)
     the appropriate conclusions from an infringement of the
     last sentence of Article 93 (3) of the Treaty, where the
     matter has also been referred to the Commission, which         (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be
     has not yet given a final decision on the question                      published in the European Court Reports)
     whether the State measures constitute State aid, is not
     required to declare that it lacks jurisdiction or to stay
     proceedings until such time as the Commission has              In Joined Cases C-71 /94 , C-72/94 and C-73/94 , references
     adopted a position on how the measures in question are         to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
     to be categorized. With a view to determining whether          Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) for a
     those measures should have been notified to the                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     Commission, a national court may have cause to                 court between Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH and
     interpret and apply the concept of aid. In case of doubt,      Beiersdorf AG ( C-71 /94 ), Boehringer Ingelheim KG
     it may ask the Commission for clarification.                   ( C-72/94 ), Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH ( C-73/94 ) on the
     Furthermore, it may or must, in accordance with the            interpretation of Article 36 of the EC Treaty in relation to
     second and third paragraphs of Article 177 of the EC           trade marks, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
     Treaty, refer a question to the Court of Justice for a         Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
     preliminary ruling. Where it consults the Commission or        Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
     refers a question to the Court, it must decide whether it      Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann
     is necessary to order interim measures in order to             and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G.
     safeguard the interests of the parties pending final           Jacobs, for the Registrar : H. von Holstein, Deputy
     judgment.                                                      Registrar, L. Hewlett, Administrator has given a judgment
                                                                    on 11 July 1996 in which it rules :
2 . The provision of logistical and commercial assistance by
     a public undertaking to its subsidiaries, which are            Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning
     governed by private law and carry on an activity open to       that a trade-mark owner may rely on his rights as owner to
     free competition, is capable of constituting State aid         prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical
     within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty if the       product which was put on the market in another Member
     remuneration received in return is less than that which        State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer
     would have been demanded under normal market                   has repackaged the product in new external packaging
     conditions.                                                    through which the trade mark affixed to the original
                                                                    packaging has been made visible, or where he has modified
                                                                    the contents and the appearance of original external
3 . A national court requested to order the repayment of            packaging while preserving the trade mark affixed thereto
     aid must grant that application if it finds that the aid       by the manufacturer, unless:
     was not notified to the Commission, unless by
     reason of exceptional circumstances repayment is               — it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the
     inappropriate.                                                     owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged
                                                                        products under that trade mark would contribute to the
                                                                        artificial partitioning of the markets between Member
4 . A recipient of aid who does not verify that the aid has             States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner
     been notified to the Commission in accordance with                 has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the
     Article 93 (3) of the Treaty cannot incur liability solely         market in several Member States in various forms of
     on the basis of Community law.                                     packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the
                                                                        importer is necessary in order to market the product in
                                                                        the Member State of importation, and also carried out in
(M OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .                                         such conditions that the original condition of the
                                                                        product cannot be affected by it; that requirement does
                                                                        not, however, imply that it must be established that the
                                                                        trade mark owner deliberately sought to partition the
                                                                        markets between Member States ,


title: Joined Cases T-76/07, T-362/07 and T-409/08: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — El Fatmi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/22

         Order of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — El Fatmi v Council
   (Joined Cases T-76/07, T-362/07 and T-409/08) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 174/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Nouriddin El Fatmi (Vught, Netherlands) (represented by G. Pulles and A. M. van Eik (Cases T-76/07, T-362/07 and T-409/08), J. Pauw (Cases T-76/07 and T-362/07) and M. Uiterwaal (T-76/07), lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by G. J. Van Hegelsom and E. Finnegan (T-76/07 and T-362/07), then by B. Driessen and E. Finnegan (T-76/07, T-362/07 and T-409/08), agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by C. Wissels, M. de Mol and Y. de Vries, and by M. de Grave (Case T-76/07), then by C. Wissels, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, agents); and European Commission (represented by S. Boelaert and P. van Nuffel, and, initially, by J. Aquilina (Case T-76/07), agents

      Re:

   In essence, application for annulment of Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123), replaced successively by Council Decisions 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58), 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21), 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25), Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 (OJ 2009 L 151, p. 14), Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1285/2009 of 22 December 2009 (OJ 2009 L 346, p. 39), (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 1), (EU) No 83/2011 of 31 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 14), and (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

   The General Court orders:

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-350/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/29

         Action brought on 7 September 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-350/07)
   (2007/C 283/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arysta Lifesciences SAS (Nogueres, France), Belchim Crop Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret SA (Barcelona, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), F&N Agro Česká republika s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), F&N Agro Polska (Warsaw, Poland), FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, United States) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision 2007/416/EC;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicants and the review of the Carbofuran dossiers of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-326/07 Cheminova and Others v Commission.


title: Case C-529/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2014  — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2014 — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe
   (Case C-529/14)
   (2015/C 065/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Itzehoe

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 1 of Directive 2003/96/EC (1) preclude national tax relief for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment or does the directive not apply to such energy products pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC because use for thermal exhaust air treatment is a purpose other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels and this therefore constitutes dual use of energy products within the meaning of that provision?

               2.

               Is tax relief possible, if appropriate, for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment only if, in the thermal exhaust air treatment process, they also go into a product resulting from the treatment of exhaust air as a raw material, basic material or auxiliary material?

               3.

               Is tax relief precluded for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment if the thermal energy released in the treatment of exhaust air is also partly used for heating and/or drying purposes? Is such relief also precluded, as appropriate, if less energy is required for heating and/or drying than the energy which is available in the exhaust air and released in its thermal treatment?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


title: Case C-194/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Munich I (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2010 — Robert Nicolaus Abt, Daniela Kalwarowskyj, Mangusta Beteiligungs GmbH, Karsten Trippel, VC-Services GmbH, Henning Hahmann v Hypo Real Estate Holding AG

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Munich I (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2010 — Robert Nicolaus Abt, Daniela Kalwarowskyj, Mangusta Beteiligungs GmbH, Karsten Trippel, VC-Services GmbH, Henning Hahmann v Hypo Real Estate Holding AG
   (Case C-194/10)
   2010/C 195/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Munich I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Robert Nicolaus Abt, Daniela Kalwarowskyj, Mangusta Beteiligungs GmbH, Karsten Trippel, VC-Services GmbH, Henning Hahmann

      Defendant: Hypo Real Estate Holding AG

      Interveners: Klaus E.H. Zapf, Inge Jung-Arend

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/36/EC (1) already to be applied, on account of the requirement under European law to refrain from measures liable to compromise a directive, where the national legislature has enacted a measure that will cease to have effect on the expiry of the transposition period but which, during that period, permits the period for convening a general meeting to be shortened to one day, where the general meeting passes a resolution (to increase the capital, subscriptions rights being excluded) that, on statutory grounds, remains valid after registration in the commercial register even if that resolution is annulled on the basis of a successful action for annulment?

               2.

               If that question is answered in the affirmative: may the infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/36/EC be justified by Community law requirements, in particular Article 297 EC?

      (1)  Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies; OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17.


title: Case C-63/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 12 — Issue of residence documents or visas — Article 27 — Remedies — Extent of judicial scrutiny)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-63/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 12 - Issue of residence documents or visas - Article 27 - Remedies - Extent of judicial scrutiny))
   (2016/C 296/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an asylum seeker is entitled to plead, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in Chapter III of the regulation, in particular the criterion relating to the grant of a visa set out in Article 12 of the regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 21 July 1998, in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte: The University of Cambridge (Case C-380/98)

text:
C 397/20             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.12.98
     Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  (a) awards or grants paid by one or more contracting
     meaning that the underlying concept of aid also                           authorities for the support of research work;
     covers national rules which merely govern the
     apportionment of the costs between undertakings at
                                                                          (b) consideration paid by one or more contracting
     the various production levels which have arisen
                                                                               authorities for the supply of services comprising
     through purchasing obligations and minimum prices,
                                                                               research work;
     where the legislature's approach creates in practice a
     permanent burden for which the undertakings affected
     obtain no consideration?                                             (c) consideration paid by one or more contracting
                                                                               authorities for the supply of other services, such
                                                                               as consultancy or the organisation of conferences;
(b) In the event that the second question is answered in
     the negative in respect of Paragraph 4 of the Law on
     the supply of electricity, is Article 93(3) of the EC                (d) student grants paid by local education authorities
     Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that its restrictive                  to universities in respect of tuition for named
     effects apply not only to the benefit itself but also to                  students.
     implementing rules such as Paragraph 4 of the Law
     on the supply of electricity?
                                                                     2. What percentage or other meaning is to be given to
                                                                          the expression for the most part' in Article 1 of the
(c) In the event that questions (a) and (b) are answered in               Directives?
     the negative, is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as meaning that a quantitative restriction
     on imports Ð and/or a measure having equivalent                 3. If the expression for the most part' is defined in terms
     effect as between Member States for the purposes of                  of a percentage figure, is the calculation limited to
     the aforementioned provision Ð arises where a                        considering sources of finance for academic and
     provision of national law places undertakings under                  related purposes or should it include finance obtained
     an obligation to purchase electricity produced from                  in relation to commercial activities as well?
     renewable energy sources at minimum prices and
     requires grid operators to meet the costs entailed for
     no consideration?                                               4. Over what period should any calculation be made for
                                                                          determining whether a university is a contracting
                                                                          authority' in respect of any particular procurement,
                                                                          and how are foreseeable or future changes to be taken
                                                                          into account?
                                                                     (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  coordination of procedures for the award of public service
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                     contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 21 July 1998,            (2) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993, concerning the
in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte:                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                The University of Cambridge                              contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                     (3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                      (Case C-380/98)                                    procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199,
                                                                         9.8.1993, p. 1).
                       (98/C 397/34)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
Divisional Court, of 21 July 1998, which was received at             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a preliminary             (England and Wales), by order of that Court of 31 July
ruling in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex               1998, in the case of Ingmar GB Limited against Eaton
parte: The University of Cambridge, on the following                                     Leonard Technologies Inc
questions:
                                                                                (Case C-381/98)
1. Where Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1),                                        (98/C 397/35)
    Council Directive 93/37/EEC (2) and Council Directive
    93/36/EEC (3) (the Directives') refers to any body
    financed, for the most part, by the state, or regional          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    or local authorities, or other bodies governed by                European Communities by an order of the Court of
    public law' what monies are to be included in the                Appeal (England and Wales), of 31 July 1998, which was
    expression financed . . . by (Zone or more contracting          received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a
    authorities)'? In particular, in relation to payments to         preliminary ruling in the case of Ingmar GB Limited
    an entity such as the University of Cambridge, does              against Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc, on the following
    the expression include:                                          questions:


title: Case T-186/11: Action brought on 26 March 2011 — Schönberger v Parliament

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/37

         Action brought on 26 March 2011 — Schönberger v Parliament
   (Case T-186/11)
   2011/C 145/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by letter of 25 January 2011, with which the examination of his petition No 1188/2010 was concluded without the content of the petition having been addressed by the Committee on Petitions;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The contested decision was adopted in infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to petition, since, despite the admissibility of the applicant’s petition, the Parliament Committee on Petitions refused to hear the concerns submitted therein, and so the applicant’s right to have the content of his petition considered was refused.

               2.

               The Parliament breached the applicant’s right to a statement of reasons, since the decision challenged makes no reference to the grounds for the refusal of the Committee on Petitions to hear the petition.


title: Case F-44/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Spadafora v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Post of Head of Unit — Vacancy notice — Selection procedure — Pre-selection panel — Interview with the pre-selection panel — Not included on the short-list of candidates proposed for a final interview with the Appointing Authority — Regularity of the selection procedure — Priority recruitment of a candidate having the nationality of a particular Member State — Conduct of the president of the pre-selection panel — Language discrimination — Claim for compensation — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Spadafora v Commission
   (Case F-44/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Post of Head of Unit - Vacancy notice - Selection procedure - Pre-selection panel - Interview with the pre-selection panel - Not included on the short-list of candidates proposed for a final interview with the Appointing Authority - Regularity of the selection procedure - Priority recruitment of a candidate having the nationality of a particular Member State - Conduct of the president of the pre-selection panel - Language discrimination - Claim for compensation - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 175/40)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to appoint a person other than the applicant, who had been acting Head of Unit since the departure of the preceding Head of Unit, to the post of Head of Unit C4 (Legal Advice).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Sergio Spadafora shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015, p. 27.


title: Case T-2/03: Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/37
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the complaint                 conducting several sets of civil proceedings before Austrian
Appeal:                                                                   courts against the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG. He
                                                                          submits that, in order to conduct these proceedings success-
Pleas in law:                  —     Infringement               of        fully, in particular in order to underpin the claims made with
                                     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation        the argument that the Bank’s incorrect conduct was part of a
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   systematic anti-competitive concerted practice over a number
                                                                          of years between the Austrian banks, it has sought authoris-
                               —     Infringement of Article 7(3)         ation to inspect the administrative records concerning the
                                     of Regulation (EC) No 40/            Commission’s competition proceedings against Austrian
                                     94;                                  banks. In the contested decision the Commission rejected the
                               —     Infringement of Article 74(1)        applicant’s application.
                                     of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                     94;
                               —     Infringement of Article 73 of        The applicant claims that the contested decision runs counter
                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94;            to the fundamental right of Union citizens granted under
                                                                          Article 255(1) and (2) EC and Article 42 of the EU Charter of
                               —     Infringement of the right to         Fundamental Rights to access to public documents. Further-
                                     a proper hearing.                    more, the decision conflicts with the provisions of Regulation
                                                                          (EC) No 1049/2001 (1). A once-for-all exclusion of the entirety
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          of the administrative records from the right to access to the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).                           documents would, in the absence of closer examination of the
                                                                          individual documents for the purpose of determining whether
                                                                          or not they are suitable for publication, not be in accordance
                                                                          with the provisions of that regulation or the case-law of the
                                                                          Community judicature.
Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Verein für
Konsumenteninformation (VKI) against the Commission                       The applicant goes on to claim that the exceptional circum-
                of the European Communities                               stances mentioned in the third indent of Article 4(2) of
                                                                          Regulation No 1049/2001 do not justify refusal of access to
                           (Case T-2/03)                                  the documents because the relevant inspection activities by
                                                                          the Commission have already been concluded. Nor are the
                          (2003/C 55/91)                                  requirements for application of the exception concerning
                                                                          protection of commercial interests satisfied since the Com-
                   (Language of the case: German)                         mission has not submitted in what manner banks’ commercial
                                                                          interests might specifically be jeopardised. Prevention of the
                                                                          making of justified claims by consumers who have suffered
                                                                          loss is not a commercial interest worthy of protection within
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 the meaning of Regulation No 1049/2001. Nor does the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                protection of court proceedings preclude the grant of access
European Communities on 7 January 2003 by the Verein für                  to inspect documents. Furthermore, protection of the private
Konsumenteninformation (Association for Consumer Infor-                   domain and of the individual’s integrity can readily be secured
mation — VKI), represented by A. Klausner, Lawyer.                        by ensuring the anonymity of records.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision (2002) 330472 of                          In addition, the applicant claims that there is an overriding
      18 December 2002 by which the applicant was entirely                public interest in inspection by the applicant of the Com-
      refused access to inspect the Commission’s records con-             mission’s records since collective enforcement of claims for
      cerning the competition proceedings against Austrian                compensation by consumers who have suffered loss is con-
      banks (COMP/36.571 ‘Lombard Club: Cartel’)                          ducive to both enforcement of EC competition law and the
                                                                          collective interests of consumers in the Community.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments                                                  (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                               of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                               European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
The applicant is a consumer organisation constituted under
the Austrian law on associations which in order to safeguard
the collective interests of consumers has special powers in
connection with civil proceedings. Currently, the applicant is


title: Case F-41/11: Action brought on 19 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Action brought on 19 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-41/11)
   2011/C 282/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment.

      Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 11 February 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-172/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/15

         Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-172/04)
   (2004/C 179/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. established in Madrid, represented by Mr Andrea Sirimarco, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2004 in Case R 676/2002-1;

               —

               register the Community trade mark No 1.694.157 ‘emergia’ (figurative mark) to designate ‘telecommunications by networks of undersea cables for the electronic transmission of voice, data and video communications’ in class 38 of the International Classification; and

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any party entering an appearance as intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘emergia’– application No 1.694.157 for products and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               D. Branch.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               Community word mark ‘EMERGEA’ for products and services including, in class 38, ‘data transmission service by national and international networks and communications by computer terminals’.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld in part in so far as the opposition concerned ‘tele-communications, communications by computer networks’ in class 38.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion) wrongly applied.


title: Case T-559/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)
   (Case T-559/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark natural beauty - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 250/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France) (represented: initially by R. Dissmann and A. Steegmann and subsequently by R. Dissmann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 971/2010-1) concerning registration of the figurative sign natural beauty as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laboratoire Garnier et Cie to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case T-271/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/45

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)
   (Case T-271/16)
   (2016/C 251/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yusuf Pempe (Créteil, France) (represented by: A. Vivès-Albertini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marshall Amplification plc (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS’ – Application for registration No 11 570 264

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 376/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the oppostion in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 concerning the proof of use and the likelihood of confusion between signs.


title: Case T-250/08: Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Batchelor v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/64

         Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Batchelor v Commission
   (Case T-250/08)
   (2008/C 209/113)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister, and D. Reymond, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by the European Commission on 9 April 2008 and the express negative decision made by the Commission on 16 May 2008, relating to a request for access to documents presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application for annulment under Article 230 EC is directed against the Commission's implied decision of 9 April 2008 and its express decision of 16 May 2008, made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) (‘the Access Regulation’), by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request for access to documents relating to the notification of measures taken under Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision violates Article 253 EC and Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of the Access Regulation and thus is vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, namely, by failing to give sufficient reasons for denial of access to the documents requested. The applicant further submits that, in denying access to the documents requested, the contested decision violates Article 255 EC and Articles 1(a), 2(1) and (3), 4(1) to (6) of the Access Regulation. In particular, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the Access Regulation in holding that the exceptions under the second paragraph of Article 4(3) and of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) thereof applied and, finally, that the contested decision infringes Article 4(6) of the Access Regulation in failing to provide reasons for the refusal of partial access to the documents requested.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-235/07: Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Bavaria v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/40

         Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Bavaria v Commission
   (Case T-235/07)
   (2007/C 211/76)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Bavaria NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, D. Mes and A.C.E. Stoffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the Commission decision of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market — C(2007) 1697 final) to the extent to which that decision concerns Bavaria NV;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on Bavaria NV;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging the Commission decision of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which a fine was imposed on the applicant.
   In support of its application, the applicant first submits that there has been an infringement of the principle of sound administration in so far as the Commission failed to institute a full, careful and impartial investigation.
   Second, it is claimed that the Commission breached Article 81 EC through manifest errors of appraisal, misapplication of the law in establishing the existence of the breach, disregard for the presumption of innocence, and infringement of the principle of legality and of the obligation under Article 253 EC to state reasons.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in its determination of the duration of the breach.
   Fourth, it is alleged that, in determining the level of the fine imposed on the applicant, the Commission breached Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), the guidelines on fines based on that regulation (2), the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality.
   Fifth, the applicant alleges that there was a manifest failure by the Commission to carry out its investigation within a reasonable time-frame inasmuch as that investigation lasted more than seven years.
   Sixth, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of essential procedural requirements, of the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence, consisting in the refusal to grant it access to the replies of other breweries to the statement of objections and to sections of the Commission's file of crucial importance for the applicant's defence.

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

      (2)  Commission Notice — Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).