title: Action brought on 20 July 1998 by André van Meuter against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-109/98)

text:
10.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/15
orders issued by the delegate resulted in a contract which          a breach of the confidentiality of medical information,
had, in terms of achieving its goal Ð namely, development           which is an absolute requirement and a matter of public
aid for Somalia Ð plainly become wholly obsolete, being             policy.
forcibly performed. Yet the applicant's assets could have
been preserved by an immediate withdrawal from                      Lastly, the appointing authority has failed to comply with
Somalia.                                                            the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 7 of the
                                                                    rules on disciplinary proceedings: the imposition of a
                                                                    disciplinary measure three and a half years after the
                                                                    disciplinary proceedings were commenced represents a
                                                                    manifest failure to respect any reasonable time limit. In
                                                                    view of that failure, it is no longer possible for any
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by AndreÂ van Meuter                 disciplinary measure to be taken and the disciplinary
  against the Commission of the European Communities                proceedings must be closed.
                       (Case T-109/98)
                        (98/C 312/38)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                    Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Mannesmannröhren-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Werke AG against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998                                          Communities
by AndreÂ van Meuter, residing in Brussels, represented by                                 (Case T-112/98)
Olivier Eben and Jean-Marc Bievez, of the Brussels Bar,                                      (98/C 312/39)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-                               (Language of the case: German)
Alzette.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Ð annul the disciplinary measure taken by the appointing            by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office
    authority on 10 October 1997, by which the applicant            is in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
    was downgraded from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2,            Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Rechtsanwälte, Düssel-
    step 8, and order that he be reinstated in his former           dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    grade,                                                          Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
Ð order that the disciplinary proceedings against the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    applicant be closed,
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
Ð order that no other disciplinary measure be taken                      1998 in its entirety,
    against the applicant,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision,
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority
decided to impose on the applicant, with effect from                In the course of an investigation to ascertain alleged
1 November 1997, the disciplinary measure of                        infringements by steel pipe producers of Article 85 of the
downgrading from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8,           EC Treaty, the Commission addressed the contested
on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply              decision to the defendant, requiring it to provide the
with his obligation to undergo a medical examination, as            information specified in the schedule to the decision
he had undertaken to do, and that he had not lived up to            within 30 days or pay a default fine of ECU 1 000 per day
the trust which the appointing authority had placed in              in the event of non-compliance.
him.
                                                                    The applicant complains that the Commission did not
According to the applicant, he cannot be downgraded.                allow it a sufficient hearing before issuing the decision.
Despite the excellent staff reports drawn up in relation to         There was thus a lack of any proper preliminary
him, and despite his having passed a competition, he has            procedure, contrary to Article 11(5) in conjunction with
never been promoted. Downgrading means that the                     Article 16(2) of Regulation 17. The Commission further
applicant has been penalised twice on the basis of the              failed to make available to the applicant in an appropriate
same facts, the first penalty being his non-promotion.              manner those documents which it used in issuing a
                                                                    decision causing lasting prejudice to the applicant, and
Moreover, to impose a disciplinary measure without                  upon which it based that decision. The principles in the
making the applicant's medical file available to him                Solvay (1) and ICI (2) cases were thereby infringed. The
constitutes a violation of the rights of the defence. The           applicant also complains of a breach of Article 190 of the
fact that details of the applicant's state of health were           EC Treaty in that the formal statement of reasons for the
revealed to the appointing authority represents, a fortiori,        decision does not explain why it was necessary.


title: Case T-41/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2009 — IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission (Project Ecodata — Commission Decision in preparation of the forced execution of a claim due pursuant to an earlier decision — Action deprived of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/51

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2009 — IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission
   (Case T-41/07) (1)

   (Project Ecodata - Commission Decision in preparation of the forced execution of a claim due pursuant to an earlier decision - Action deprived of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 24/90
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Arhold, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 on the recovery of advance payments in the amount of EUR 318 000 made to IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH for the project Ecodata pursuant to the decision to grant financial assistance of 4 August 1992, prior to the Commission’s decision of 13 May 2005 to annul the financial assistance.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer a need to give a ruling on the action.

               2.

               IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH and the European Commission each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 14.4.2007


title: Case C-480/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 11 — National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-480/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 11 - National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector)
   2013/C 171/02
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 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 limiting application of the rules on VAT groups only to undertakings carrying out activities in the financial sector

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-381/03: Action brought on 10 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
1.11.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/23
Action brought on 10 September 2003 by the Com-                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                              Republic                                     —     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                                Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of
                           (Case C-381/03)
                                                                                the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment
                                                                                in commercial transactions (1) or, in any event, by failing
                          (2003/C 264/38)                                        to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the              —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 Septem-
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The time allowed for transposing the directive expired on
                                                                           8 August 2002.
—     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 2001/53/EC of 10 July 2001                      (1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.
      amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equip-
      ment (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
      same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 12 September 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the Federal
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   Republic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-386/03)
The time-limit for transposing the directive expired on 17 Feb-
ruary 2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/40)
(1) OJ L 204 of 28.7.2001, p. 1.
                                                                           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 12 September 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and
                                                                           M. Niejahr of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the                            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                         Kingdom of Spain                                  the Court should:
                           (Case C-384/03)                                 1.    declare that by adopting measures in Paragraphs 8(2) and
                                                                                9(3) of the Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungsdienste
                                                                                auf Flugplätzen (German Regulation concerning
                          (2003/C 264/39)                                        groundhandling services at airports) of 10 December
                                                                                1997 which are not compatible with Articles 16 and 18
                                                                                of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on
                                                                                access to the groundhandling market at Community
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        airports (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 Sep-                      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
tember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by D. Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an                   2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-35/96)

text:
No C 95/ 10            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
24 January 1996, which was received at the Court Registry            Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
on 9 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in criminal             24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik
proceedings against Maria Paolantoni .                               Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes
                                                                           Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                                        Case C-36/96 )
Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                                     ( 96/C 95/ 17 )
C-58/95 ( M.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                     of 24 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 12 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice
                                                                     Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and
                                                                     Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following
Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of               questions :
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-35/96 )                            1 . is a Turkish worker within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
                           ( 96/C 95/16 )                                 of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey Association
                                                                          Council on the development of the Association
                                                                          ('Decision No 1 /80') duly registered as belonging to the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 labour force of a Member State and is he legally
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      employed there if he has been permitted to be employed
9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European                         by an employer in the Member State only temporarily
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa , of its Legal                and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey ?
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                                                                     2 . can a claim under Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has
                                                                         expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey
1 . declare that by adopting and maintaining in force a law              after preparation for the work there and the authority
     which, in granting the relative decision-making power,               dealing with foreigners has permitted him to reside
     requires the Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                 in the country temporarily only in view of that
     Doganali ( CNSD ) to adopt a decision by an association             declaration ?
     of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community in that it fixes a
     compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the Italian
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;                                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                     d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                    30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem,
                                                                     Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      ( C-38/96 ) against Direction Generale des Douanes
                                                                                ( Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 )
By Decision 93/438/EEC ( l ) of 30 June 1993 , the                                            ( 96/C 95/18 )
Commission found that the tariff adopted by the CNSD at
its meeting on 21 March 1988 constitutes an infringement             Two references have been made to the Court ofJustice of the
of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .                                  European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
The Commission also found that the direct basis for the
                                                                     d'Instance ( District Court), Paris VII, of 30 January 1996 ,
                                                                     which were received at the Court Registry on 12 February
CNSD decision of 21 March 1988 , which hinders
                                                                     1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of the companies
competition in that it fixes a compulsory tariff for all             Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
customs agents, is Italian Law No 1612/1960 which                    ( C-38/96 ) against the Direction Generate des Douanes on
provides for the adoption by the CNSD of a decision by an            the following question:
association of undertakings prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 ) of
the Treaty. The Commission has therefore concluded that              do the rules laid down by Law 92-676 of 17 July 1992
Law No 1612/1969 constitutes an infringement of Article 5            concerning dock dues and implementing Decision 89/688 of
of the Treaty in relation to Article 85 .                            the Council of the European Communities of 22 December
                                                                     1 989 ( 1 ) have the effect of replacing a charge having
(') OJ No L 203 , 30 . 6 . 1993 , p . 27.                            equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, as
                                                                     considered in the preliminary ruling of 16 July 1992 in
                                                                     Legros, and of establishing — by contrast with the dock


title: Case T-325/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 September 2005  — DaimlerChrysler v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agency agreement — Distribution of motor vehicles — Economic unit — Measures designed to hinder parallel trade in motor vehicles — Price-fixing — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Fine)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — DaimlerChrysler v Commission
   (Case T-325/01) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agency agreement - Distribution of motor vehicles - Economic unit - Measures designed to hinder parallel trade in motor vehicles - Price-fixing - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 - Fine)
   (2005/C 296/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Daimler Chrysler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and W. Bosch, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)
   Application for
   Primarly, annulment of Commission Decision 2002/58/EC of 10 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.264 — Mercedes-Benz) (OJ 2002 L 257, p. 1) and, in the alternative, reduction in the fine imposed by that decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/758/EC of 10 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/36.264 — Mercedes-Benz) save in so far as it finds that DaimlerChrysler AG and its legal predecessors Daimler-Benz AG and Mercedes-Benz AG have themselves or through their subsidiary Mercedes-Benz Belgium SA infringed Article 81(1) EC by participating in agreements to restrict the granting of discounts in Belgium, those agreements having been concluded on 20 April 1995 and terminated on 10 July 1999;

               2)

               Annuls Article 2 with the exception of the first sentence;

               3)

               Annuls Article 3 of Decision 2002/758 in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 71.825 million;

               4)

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 3 of Decision 2002/758 for the infringement relating to price-fixing in Belgium at EUR 9.8 million;

               5)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               6)

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay 60 % of those incurred by the applicant, and the applicant to bear 40 % its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v Recettes des douanes (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for, holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)

text:
C 84/34                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                             Article 3(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                           Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the first recital in the preamble to, and
2.    Anton Dürbeck GmbH shall pay the costs.                              Article 3(2) of, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
                                                                           on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
3.    The French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their        on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and the
      own cost.                                                            sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                           structures of excise duties on mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                  the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member
                                                                           State refusing, upon the failure to pay by the customer of a trader in
                                                                           petroleum products, to reimburse an excise duty such as the domestic
                                                                           duty on petroleum products paid by such a trader.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                          (First Chamber)
                      of 22 November 2001
in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v
                     Recettes des douanes (1)
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-                   in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling
law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for,                      from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory
holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to                                   v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of
the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-
  reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)                  (Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference
                                                                                procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                           (2002/C 84/56)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/57)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-80/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal d’Instance (District Court), Châteauroux                 In Case C-186/01 R: reference to the Court under Article 234
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
before that court between Michel SARL and Recettes des                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
douanes — on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of the             court between Alexander Dory and The Federal Republic of
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the             Germany — on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
first recital in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Council             Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                     tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the                as regards access to employment, vocational training and
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ                      promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) —
1992 L 76, p. 1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in the                 the Court has made an order on 24 October 2001 in which it
preamble to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992                 has ruled as follows:
on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,                The application for interim relief is inadmissible.
p. 12), the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a            (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
judgment on 22 November 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case C-253/06: Action brought on 6 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/2

         Action brought on 6 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-253/06)
   (2006/C 237/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Simonetti and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period laid down for implementing the directive expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case F-123/05: Action brought on  13 December 2005  — Jean-Marc Bracke v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/53

         Action brought on 13 December 2005 — Jean-Marc Bracke v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-123/05)
   (2006/C 60/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Jean-Marc Bracke (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bruwier, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 7 September 2005 by the appointing authority in response to the complaint lodged by Mr Jean-Marc Bracke (No R/570/05) and the subsequent measures adopted as a consequence of that decision;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition COM/PC/04, contests the legality of the appointing authority's decision not to take him on as a probationary official on the ground that he does not fulfil the seniority requirements included among the eligibility conditions for the abovementioned competition.
   The applicant contends that the contested decision infringes Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that, for no valid reason, it denies some of the candidates access to the vacant post. He also alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination, of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of independence of the selection board and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Finally, he contends that the provision in the vacancy notice on which the abovementioned decision was based, namely paragraph III .1, is illegal, since it is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination and should therefore be declared inoperative, pursuant to Article 241 EC.


title: Case C-489/16: Action brought on 9 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/9

         Action brought on 9 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-489/16)
   (2016/C 410/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, by 16 June 2015 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 32) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 64(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 710 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2012/34/EU;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive expired on 16 June 2015.
   It is apparent from the various replies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in particular from the reply to the reasoned opinion, that more than one year after the expiry of the transposition period set by the directive the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet adopted the required measures.
   The determination of the penalty under Article 260(3) TFEU is based on the three criteria applied under Article 260(2) TFEU, namely the seriousness of the infringement, its duration, and the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect in order to avoid further infringements.


title: Case T-500/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — Germany v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/20

         Action brought on 23 September 2011 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-500/11)
   2011/C 355/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4922 final of 13 July 2011 in State aid procedure N 438/2010 in so far as it declares that the entire subordinated loans scheme is covered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the whole decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action is directed against the Commission’s decision on the subordinated loans scheme WACHSTUM for undertakings with a rating in Sachsen-Anhalt in so far as it declares that the entire subordinated loans scheme is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 (1) on de minimis aid.
   The action challenges the Commission’s view that it is to be assumed, on the basis of the mere fact that the loans are granted by a special credit institution, that they are not granted under market conditions and that therefore the requirements of the de minimis Regulation must be complied with.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1998/2006 on account of the incorrect finding or mere claim that there is an advantage
               The Commission’s finding that the measure is covered by the de minimis Regulation is substantively incorrect. The addressees of the loans scheme received no advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU with the result that the loans scheme should not therefore be regarded as aid in the main cases to which it applies.

                           —

                           The Commission should not have concluded that an advantage exists from the mere fact that loans are granted by a special credit institution. What matters especially as regards loans are the loan conditions. In order to determine whether an advantage is being granted the interest rate required, the collateral for the loan and the overall position of the undertaking receiving the loan are decisive. It must be ascertained whether a private investor would have granted a comparable loan at the agreed interest rate and on the basis of the securities indicated.

                           —

                           In accordance with the previous decision-making practice of the Commission, those indicators were, in the case of subordinated loans, concretised by means of the so-called Brandenburg method on the basis of the Commission reference rate communication in such a way that there was no aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission is suddenly departing from that decision-making practice and solely taking into account the characteristics of the credit institution which is granting the loan. Those characteristics are, however, completely unsuitable as indicators since special credit institutions are also capable of acting under market conditions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU
               Furthermore the applicant submits that there is infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU because the Commission was satisfied with sweeping assumptions and deductions, but did not explain why the loan conditions were not market conditions and why it was suddenly departing from its previous decision-making practice.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence in its various forms
               The applicant further submits that there is infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence in its various forms as the Commission did not discuss the change in its view with the Federal Government before the adoption of the contested decision.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5).


title: Case C-47/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Approximation of laws — Cocoa and chocolate products — Labelling — Addition of the word pure or the phrase pure chocolate to the labelling of certain products)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-47/09) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Cocoa and chocolate products - Labelling - Addition of the word ‘pure’ or the phrase ‘pure chocolate’ to the labelling of certain products)
   2011/C 30/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Nardi, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 3 of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption (OJ 2000 L 197, p. 9) and Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — Labelling of chocolate products — Inclusion of the word ‘puro’ or the phrase ‘cioccolato puro’ in the labelling of chocolate products containing only cocoa butter by way of vegetable fat.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing that the adjective ‘pure’ may be added to the sales name of chocolate products which do not contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption and under Article 3(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-152/15: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Articles 4(1) and 13 — Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 — Article 19(1)(a) — Conditions for the release of the guarantee provided to ensure the repayment of the advance — Conditions for the grant of the refund — Sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported — Taking into account, for the grant of the refund, the facts established by the competent authority following an inspection which took place after the actual export and customs clearance of the products — Interpretation of the judgment in Cruz & Companhia (C-128/13, EU:C:2014:2432))

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL
   (Case C-152/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Articles 4(1) and 13 - Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 - Article 19(1)(a) - Conditions for the release of the guarantee provided to ensure the repayment of the advance - Conditions for the grant of the refund - Sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported - Taking into account, for the grant of the refund, the facts established by the competent authority following an inspection which took place after the actual export and customs clearance of the products - Interpretation of the judgment in Cruz & Companhia (C-128/13, EU:C:2014:2432)))
   (2016/C 038/28)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

      Defendants: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

      Operative part of the order

   Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3403/93 of 10 December 1993, must be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee furnished by an exporter to ensure the repayment of the advance received by way of export refund may be implemented where, following an inspection carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the products in question, it is established that one of the other conditions for the grant of that refund, in particular the condition of sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported, provided for in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994, is not satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie Toller against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-142/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/25
Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie                   view that, because of the many health problems from which
Toller against the Commission of the European                       she was suffering at the time when the events at issue took
                          Communities                               place, and from which she continues to suffer, she could not
                       ( Case T-142/96 )                            be held fit to perform her duties or to have disciplinary
                                                                    action taken against her. That request was rejected by a
                         ( 96/C 318/43 )                            decision of 16 November 1995 , which is the decision
                                                                    challenged in this case.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    The applicant maintains, first, that in not recognizing the
An action against the Commission of the European                    considerable degree of invalidity and incapacity from which
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   she suffers and in seeking to justify her dismissal on the
Instance on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie Toller,                 ground of alleged incompetence in the performance of her
resident in Brussels, represented by Benoit Lombart and Eric        duties, the defendant has disregarded Articles 53 , 59 and 78
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in       of, and Annexes VIII and IX to the Staff Regulations, as well
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort          as the principle requiring every decision to be based on
Rheinsheim .
                                                                    correct and relevant grounds, that is to say, not vitiated by
                                                                    errors of fact or law .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the express decision of 16 November 1995 ,                  She points out that, according to case-law, no disciplinary
     notified to the applicant on 20 November 1995 ,                action may be taken against an official where the acts
     rejecting the request, made pursuant to Article 90 ( 1 ) of    complained of were closely linked to and influenced by his
     the Staff Regulations on 15 September 1995 , by which          physical, psychological or mental state . In the applicant's
     the applicant asked the appointing authority to                case, the opinion of the Invalidity Commitee, which
     reconsider the decision of 1 July 1993 notified by the         considered that she had no symptoms which could justify
     Director-General of staff administration, acting as the        the problems which she encountered in her work, was issued
     appointing authority, taking the disciplinary action of        without taking into account all the symptoms as a whole,
     removing her from her post, with no reduction or               which would necessarily have led to the contrary
     withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension, and           conclusion. The applicant concludes that her situation
     stating that, with immediate effect, her services were no      satisfies the criteria generally applied as regards the need for
     longer required, the decision to take effect on 1 October      reconsideration and that a fresh Medical Committee should
     1993 ,                                                         reexamine the situation in the light of new factors.
— annul the Commission's implied decision rejecting the             The applicant also claims that Articles 51 and 86 to 89 of
     complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 ) of the        and Annex IX to the Staff Regulations have been infringed,
     Staff Regulations dating from 13 February 1996 ,               as well as the principles that the administration should have
                                                                    regard for the welfare of officials, equal treatment and
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  appointing authority confirmed the disciplinary action of
                                                                    dismissal when her state of physical and mental health was
The applicant states that on 15 September 1995 she                  already, at the material time, such as to render her incapable
submitted a request, within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of      of performing her functions . The appointing authority
the Staff Regulations, that the decision of July 1993 taking        should therefore, on receiving medical information, have
the disciplinary action of removing her from her post with           subsequently withdrawn the dismissal decision on its own
effect from 1 October 1993 be reconsidered . She takes the           initiative and issued a fresh decision .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2003 in Joined Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00: Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfer to the Community pension scheme of pension rights acquired under a national social security scheme — Late transfer — Interest paid after transfer — Commission's refusal to review the calculation of the pension rights of the officials concerned and to pay them part of that interest)

text:
5.4.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 83/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              2.     In Case T-303/00:
                                                                                —    annuls the Commission’s decision contained in the note of
                        of 30 January 2003                                           13 December 1999 relating to the applicant’s pension
                                                                                rights;
                                                                                —    dismisses the remainder of the action;
in Joined Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00: Manuel
Francisco Caballero Montoya and Others v Commission                             —    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                         3.     In Case T-304/00:
(Officials — Transfer to the Community pension scheme of                        —    annuls the Commission’s decision contained in the note of
pension rights acquired under a national social security                             15 December 1999 relating to the applicant’s pension
scheme — Late transfer — Interest paid after transfer —                              rights;
Commission’s refusal to review the calculation of the pension
                                                                                —    dismisses the remainder of the action;
rights of the officials concerned and to pay them part of that
                              interest)                                         —    orders the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                         4.     In Case T-322/00:
                          (2003/C 83/44)
                                                                                —    annuls the Commission’s decisions contained in the notes
                                                                                of 15 December 1999 relating to the applicants’ pension
            (Languages of the case: Spanish and French)                              rights;
                                                                                —    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 372, 23 December 2000, C 355, 9 December 2000 and
                                                                              C 335, 25 November 2000.
In Joined Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00: Manuel
Francisco Caballero Montoya, former official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
María Jesús Sáez Acevedo, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
by J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, Cecilio Alonso de Miguel,
residing in Bornem-Wintam (Belgium), Miguel Baena Durán,                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
residing in Torremolinos (Spain), Lucrecio Blázquez Rubia,
Juan Antonio Campos Morales, Jaime Cavanillas Junquera,                                          of 30 January 2003
Carlos Fernández Liébana, Ricardo García Ayala, Luis García
Collados, Pilar Gil Soria, Joaquín López Madruga, Martín                 in Case T-307/00: C v Commission of the European
Minguella Giné, Ramón Oviedo Bussells, Giovanni Ouzonoff                                           Communities ( 1)
Popoff, Raquel Sevilla García, Alfonso Solloa Inchaurtieta, José
Trimiño Pérez, residing in Brussels, Juan Cornet Prat, residing
                                                                         (Officials — Orphan’s pension — Fourth paragraph of
in Overijse (Belgium), José Luis Gallego LaPeña, Manuel Puerta
                                                                         Article 80 of the Staff Regulations — Parents’ civil status
García, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), Lorenzo Sánchez
                                                                                — Equal treatment)
García, residing in Algiers (Algeria), Kaethe Sommerau Ro-
schinsky, residing in Buenos Aires (Argentina), officials or
former officials of the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2003/C 83/45)
ties, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, J. Rivas Andrés
and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) -application for annulment of the
Commission’s decisions contained in notes of 13 December                 In Case T-307/00: C, an official of the Commission of the
1999 relating to the applicant in Case T-303/00 and of                   European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-
15 December 1999 relating to the applicants in Cases T-304/              N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
00 and T-322/00 refusing to review the calculation of their              Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
pension rights — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),            ties (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pillette) — application for
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,              annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on             1999 refusing to award an orphan’s pension to the applicant’s
30 January 2003, in which it:                                            child — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                         Composition), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                         J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio
1.    Joins Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00 for the                González, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January
      purposes of the judgment;                                          2003, in which it:


title: Case T-142/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — SIR v Council (Applications for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No need to adjudicate in the main proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/49

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — SIR v Council
   (Case T-142/11 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No need to adjudicate in the main proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 269/109
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société ivoirienne de raffinage (SIR) (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in accordance with Article 278 TFEU, suspension of the operation, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case C-359/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of workers — Work with display screen equipment — Minimum safety and health requirements — Failure to transpose)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 30 September 2004
   in Case C-359/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 90/270/EEC - Protection of workers - Work with display screen equipment - Minimum safety and health requirements - Failure to transpose)
   (2004/C 284/09)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-359/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) — action brought on 19 August 2003 under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 87/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1 November 2003.


2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case C-31/04: Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 71/13
The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September                 Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal                                           (Case C-32/04)
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own                                             (2004/C 71/21)
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                         2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                         represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission                      —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                              Spain                                            Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
                                                                               amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
                         (Case C-31/04)                                        defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
                                                                               the system of specific information relating to dangerous
                         (2004/C 71/20)                                        preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
                                                                               ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
                                                                               Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      sheets) (1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-                   Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of             2002.
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                         (1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.
      information society (1), or in any event by failing to
      communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 13 of that directive.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    of Luxembourg
The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition                                         Case C-33/04
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/22)
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-53/99: Action brought on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.6.1999
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos Progoul-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
is against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          — annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission Decision of
                          (Case T-53/99)                                       1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                               system of aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles;
                         (1999/C 174/17)                                  — order the European Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Commission by which it found that the agreement
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos                      concluded by the Comisión Delegada para Asuntos Econ-
Progoulis, represented by Mr Vassilis Akritidis and Mr Jonathan           ómicos (Executive Committee for Economic Affairs) concern-
Branton, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 ing a programme of measures to support the renewal of
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                   the commercial vehicle fleet (the ‘Plan Remove Industrial’)
                                                                          constitutes, in part, State aid. That programme is aimed at
                                                                          facilitating the financing of the purchase of new commercial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               vehicles by natural persons and by small and medium-sized
1. annul the defendant’s decision failing to amend the appli-             enterprises (SMEs), subject to the condition that another
    cant’s staff report for the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June             commercial vehicle at least ten years old — other than a road
    1997                                                                  tractor — should be definitively scrapped. The contested
                                                                          decision stated that the only items which did not constitute
2. order that the costs of and occasioned by the proceedings              State aid were grants of aid to regional public bodies and
    be borne by the defendant                                             bodies providing local public services and to natural persons
                                                                          or SMEs engaged in activities other than transport on an
3. order that compensation for non-material damage suffered               exclusively local or regional scale.
    in a minimum amount of BFR 100 000 be awarded to the
    applicant.                                                            The application is based on the following claims:
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                expectations. The applicant maintains in that regard that
                                                                               recipients of assistance under the Plan Renove, who did not
The applicant, an official in Directorate General XI.E.1 of the                receive any information from the Spanish administrative
Commission, seeks the amendment of his staff report for the                    authorities concerning the procedure followed before the
period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, on the ground                         Commission, were not in a position to appreciate factors
that his tasks, duties, responsibilities and performance were                  indicating the possible existence of any public subsidy or
misdescribed.                                                                  aid. Moreover, it was reasonable for those recipients to
                                                                               regard the Renove measures as being covered by the
                                                                               Community ‘de minimis’ rule.
The applicant submits in this regard that the contested decision
infringes general principles of law, Article 1 of the General             — Incorrect assessment of the existence of State aid, inasmuch
Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations                as the plan in question is not intended to benefit any
and Article 3 (c) (ii) and (iii) of the Guide to Staff Reports. The            particular undertakings or the production of any particular
infringements concerned also involve a manifest error in the                   goods. In the applicant’s view, the present case concerns
assessment of the facts made by the AIPN, vitiating the                        provisions of a general nature which are applicable to any
assessment of his performance.                                                 natural person or SME, without distinction as to origin or
                                                                               nationality, and which do not favour any particular
                                                                               production sector, since no conditions whatever are
                                                                               imposed regarding the origin of the vehicle concerned.
                                                                          — Absence of a statement of reasons concerning distortion
                                                                               of competition and the effect on trade between Member
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Confedera-                           States. The applicant maintains in that connection that the
ción Española de Transporte de Mercancı́as against the                       plan in question is basically and primarily intended to
                     European Commission                                       cover vehicles which are not in competition with those in
                                                                               other Member States of the Community, since vehicles
                          (Case T-55/99)                                       which are engaged in such competition are renewed long
                                                                               before expiry of the period of ten years which must elapse
                         (1999/C 174/18)                                       under the plan. The applicant further states that, at most,
                                                                               the Plan Renove Industrial may prove to be less favourable
                                                                               to haulage contractors established outside Spain, inasmuch
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                              as recourse to it would involve them in additional expense;
                                                                               nevertheless, such haulage contractors would then be in a
An action against the European Commission was brought                          more advantageous position than those established in
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 Spain, on account of the much lower interest rates
on 25 February 1999 by the Confederación Española de                         prevailing in their respective countries. Moreover, the
Transporte de Mercancı́as, established in Madrid, Spain, rep-                  Plan Renove Industrial does not automatically exclude
resented by Jorge Pérez Villar, of the Madrid Bar.                             undertakings established in other Member States.


title: Case T-265/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/60

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission
   (Case T-265/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/73)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schumacher Packaging GmbH (Schwarzenberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Schumacher Packaging GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-159/11: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2013 — Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark WALICHNOWY MARKO — Earlier Community word mark MAR-KO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2013 — Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO)
   (Case T-159/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark WALICHNOWY MARKO - Earlier Community word mark MAR-KO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 79/24
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Marek Marszałkowski (Sokolniki, Poland) (represented by: C. Sadkowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG (Blankenheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG and Mr Marek Marszałkowski.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Marek Marszałkowski to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-311/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — International carriage of persons — Flat-rate taxation of transporters domiciled outside the national territory)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-311/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - International carriage of persons - Flat-rate taxation of transporters domiciled outside the national territory)
   2010/C 179/22
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz und M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — International carriage of persons by road — National rules requiring transporters domiciled abroad to pay VAT under a flat-rate system based only on the number of persons transported to the national territory and which does not allow any right to deduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by charging value added tax in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on the taxation of goods and services, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256 of 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-64/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fishing licences — Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 — Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest — Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-64/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing licences - Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 - Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest - Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)
   (2007/C 96/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences — Failure to withdraw the fishing licences of the vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest after their definitive transfer to Argentina
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-197/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/7

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-197/12)
   2012/C 217/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not making the exemption from VAT of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive, (1) in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Commission claims that the exemption from VAT of the transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts (French General Tax Code) (CGI) was not made conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities. That condition that vessels must be used on the high seas was added to the legislative provisions regulating VAT in France in response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion addressed to the national authorities. However, the bringing of Article 262, Part II(2), of the CGI into line with the VAT directive was rendered ineffective by an explanatory ministerial ruling binding on the administrative authorities, published subsequent to the legislative amendment, which does not mention the condition that vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas, although this was provided for by the legislation.
   In the Commission’s view, none of the arguments put forward by the defendant in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, concerning, inter alia, the strict interpretation of Article 148(a) of the VAT Directive and the overly restrictive interpretation of the condition that vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas, can justify the failure to comply with the provisions of the aforementioned directive. Furthermore, as regards Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC, relied on by the French authorities, this cannot justify a derogation from the principle that exemptions must be subject to strict interpretation.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-12/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015  — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/24

         Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
   (Case T-12/15)
   (2015/C 081/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and J. Panero Rivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS [texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (consolidated version of the Spanish law on corporate tax)] adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

               —

               annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and

               —

               order to the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-826/14 Spain v Commission.
   The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.