title: Case T-30/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Reagens v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/39

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Reagens v Commission
   (Case T-30/10)
   2010/C 80/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O'Connor, L. Toffoletti, D. Gullo and E. De Giorgi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009 No C(2009) 8682 final (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in relation to Tin Stabilisers in totality or insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               find that the time-limits provided for in Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 apply so as to preclude the imposition of a fine on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, to find that the Commission has erred in the fixing of a fine of EUR 10 791 000 on the applicant and if necessary to adjust that fine to a level that is appropriate with the limited nature of the applicant’s possible infringement of Article 101 TFEU after 1996;

               —

               open a measure of enquiry into the application of paragraph 35 of the Guidelines on fines in relation to Chemson and Baerlocher and in relation to all submissions by addressees of the Tin Stabilisers decision after the notification of the Statement of Objections;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009 No C(2009)8682 final insofar as it held the applicant liable for an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 53 EEA (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), and that it imposes a fine to it.
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               The applicant claims, first, that the Commission made a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in relation to Tin stabilisers, insofar that is found that the applicant participated in an infringement of Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) after the 1996/1997 period.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error in the application of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) to the facts of the Tin stabiliser market and in particular, in finding that the time-limits provided in that Article were met. According to the applicant, the failure to prove an infringement post 1996/1997 means that a decision to fine the applicant is time barred by virtue of the five year or the ten year rules provided for in that Article.

               Third, the applicant contends that the Commission breached the principles of sound administration and the applicant’s legitimate expectations that it would conduct an investigation to the best of its ability in a rigorous and diligent manner and that it would not ignore evidence of competition. The applicant, moreover, claims that the Commission acted in breach of its rights of defence in that it did not adequately examine the evidence provided by the applicant in response to the statement of objections and in the hearing of the parties nor did it allow the applicant re-access to the non-confidential file for the investigation.

               Fourth, the applicant submits that the Commission acted in breach of the principle to treat all undertakings equally before the law in that it misapplied the Guidelines on the setting of fines (2). The applicant further submits that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality in that the fine imposed on the applicant was disproportionate in relation to all other addressees of the Tin Stabilisers decision and, in particular, Baerlocher.

               Fifth, the applicant alleged that the Commission acted so as to distort competition in the common market in breach of Article 101 TFEU to the extent that it misapplied the Guidelines on fines

               Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission acted in breach of the principle of sound administration in not conducting the investigation in a diligent and timely manner, as well as prejudiced the applicant’s right of defence in not continuing the investigation during the period of the ‘Akzo legal privilege’ applications (3) to the General Court.

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

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)

      (3)  Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2007, in Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03, Akzo Nobel Chemicals et Akcros Chemicals/Commission, [2007], ECR II-3523


title: Case T-3/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Deficiencies in the Land Parcel Identification System and the Geographic Information System (LPIS-GIS), performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions (financial years 2005 to 2007))

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-3/11) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Deficiencies in the Land Parcel Identification System and the Geographic Information System (LPIS-GIS), performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions (financial years 2005 to 2007)))
   (2015/C 262/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applied financial corrections on the Portuguese Republic totalling EUR 4 0 6 90  655,11 on account of ‘[w]eaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ in the financial years 2005 to 2007.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case C-290/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2012 — Oreste Della Rocca v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-290/12)
   2012/C 243/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oreste Della Rocca

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Taking into account the remark interpolated in paragraph 36 of the Order of 15 September 2010 in Case C-386/09 Briot [2010] ECR I-8471, does Directive 1999/70/EC (1) — and, in particular, Clause 2 [of the framework agreement set out in the Annex thereto] — also refer to the fixed-term employment relationship between worker and temporary employment agency or between worker and user, and does Directive 1999/70/EC accordingly regulate those relationships?

               2.

               In the absence of other prohibitive measures, does a provision which permits the specification, in the employment contract with a temporary employment agency, of a date on which that contract is to end, as well as its successive renewal, not on the basis of technical, organisational or production requirements of the agency in connection with the specific temporary employment relationship, but on the basis of general reasons relating to the worker, unconnected with the specific employment relationship, meet the requirements under Clause 5(1)(a) [of the framework agreement set out in the Annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC, or can it constitute a circumvention of that directive, and must the objective reasons referred to in Clause 5(1)(a) of [the above framework agreement] be set down in a document and must they relate to the specific temporary employment relationship and its successive renewal, rendering the reference to general objective requirements which served as justification for that somministrazione contract being drawn up incapable of meeting the condition set out in Clause 5(1)(a), or unsuitable for those purposes?

               3.

               Does Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the Annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC preclude the consequences of abuse from being made the responsibility of a third party, in this case, the user?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-273/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — FagorBrandt v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — FagorBrandt v Commission
   (Case T-273/04) (1)

   (2008/C 183/56)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case F-57/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 November 2007 — Jacques Hinderyckx v Council (Officials — Promotion — 2005 Promotion Exercise — Non-inclusion in list of promoted officials — Infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Staff reports from different institutions)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 November 2007 — Jacques Hinderyckx v Council
   (Case F-57/06) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - 2005 Promotion Exercise - Non-inclusion in list of promoted officials - Infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Staff reports from different institutions)
   (2008/C 37/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jacques Hinderyckx (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.Martin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and M. Bauer, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B*8 in the 2005 promotion exercise, and application for compensation
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to its own costs, to bear one third of the costs of Mr Hinderyckx

               3.

               orders Mr Hinderyckx to bear two thirds of his costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7.2006, p. 34.


title: Case C-138/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 March 2010 — DP Grup EOOD v Direcktor na Agentsia ‘Mituitsi’

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 March 2010 — DP Grup EOOD v Direcktor na Agentsia ‘Mituitsi’
   (Case C-138/10)
   2010/C 148/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DP Grup

      Defendant: Direcktor na Agentsia ‘Mituitsi’

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as requiring the customs authority to carry out only an examination of the conformity of the customs declaration with the requirements of Article 62 of that regulation by merely undertaking an examination of documents to the extent specified in Article 68 of the Regulation, and to take a decision concerning acceptance of the customs declaration solely on the basis of the documents presented, where a doubt has arisen as to the correctness of the tariff code of the goods and an expert report is necessary in order to determine that code?

               2.

               In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is the decision of the customs authority concerning immediate acceptance of the customs declaration pursuant to Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be regarded as a decision of a customs authority in accordance with Article 4(5) in conjunction with Article 8(1), first indent, of the Customs Code, and this in respect of the entire content of the customs declaration made, when at the same time the following circumstances are present:

                           (a)

                           the customs authority’s decision concerning acceptance of the customs declaration was taken solely on the basis of the documents presented together with the customs declaration;

                           (b)

                           when the required examinations were being carried out prior to acceptance of the customs declaration, the suspicion existed that the tariff code declared for the goods was not correct;

                           (c)

                           when the required examinations were being carried out prior to acceptance of the customs declaration, the information on the content of the goods declared, which is relevant for the purposes of correct determination of the tariff code, was incomplete;

                           (d)

                           during the examination prior to acceptance of the declaration, a sample was taken in order that an expert report could be drawn up for the purpose of correct determination of the tariff code of the goods?

               3.

               In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that

                           (a)

                           it allows the lawfulness of acceptance of the customs declaration to be contested before a court after release of the goods, or that

                           (b)

                           acceptance of the customs declaration is not contestable, because it merely records the declaration of the goods to the customs authorities and determines the date on which the customs debt on importation is incurred and does not constitute a decision by the customs authority as to the correct tariff classification and the amount of duties due on the basis of that declaration?

      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1;


title: Case C-167/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2011 by Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2011 in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/7

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2011 by Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2011 in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission

   (Case C-167/11 P)
   2011/C 173/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA in liquidation and arrangement with creditors (represented by: A. Abate and A. Franchi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               uphold the appeal seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 and the related decision of the European Commission of 21 October 2008 and, in so far as is necessary and possible, a direct decision on the substance of the main action;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside that judgment and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses relating to the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission, particularly in the following respects:

               a)

               Procedural defects on grounds of failure to state adequate reasons in relation to:

                           —

                           the teleological interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding (‘the TDM Regulation’) (1) in order to identify the objectives pursued by the Council for the protection of the interests of those Community shipyards affected by the unfair conditions of competition applied by Korean shipyards;

                           —

                           the relationship (order of precedence of legislative acts) between the TDM Regulation of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 of the EC Treaty; (2)

                           —

                           reference to the principle of subsidiarity in order to determine the rules governing the time-limits for notifications of aid to the Commission on the part of the Member States.

               b)

               Breach of Community law in relation to:

                           —

                           the temporal aspects of the exercise of the Member States’ power to notify aid to the Commission in the context of the TDM Regulation;

                           —

                           the Commission’s sphere of competence in the assessment of the ‘compatibility with the common market’ of the aid envisaged by the TDM Regulation;

                           —

                           the governance of the legal relations arising under the TDM Regulation following the expiry of the period in which that regulation remained in force (31 March 2005);

                           —

                           the application of the principles of equal treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 172, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/5

         Taking of the oath by the new Members of the Court of First Instance
   2009/C 267/09
   Following their appointment as Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the period from 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2010 (Mr Kanninen) and from 7 October 2009 to 31 August 2010 (Mr Schwarcz) by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 25 February 2009 (1) and 8 July 2009 (2) respectively, Mr Kanninen and Mr Schwarcz took the oath before the Court of Justice on 6 October 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 56 of 28 February 2009, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 181 of 14 July 2009, p. 25.


title: Case T-79/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Secop v Commission (State aid — Rescuing firms in difficulty — Aid in the form of a State guarantee — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of the interested parties)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Secop v Commission
   (Case T-79/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Rescuing firms in difficulty - Aid in the form of a State guarantee - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of the interested parties))
   (2016/C 136/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Secop GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Schnelle and C. Aufdermauer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 9119 final of 18 December 2013, concerning State aid SA.37640 — Rescue aid for ACC Compressors SpA — Italy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Secop GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-28/05: Action brought on 17 January 2005 by Ekabe International SCA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/40

         Action brought on 17 January 2005 by Ekabe International SCA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-28/05)
   (2005/C 82/72)
   Language in which the application was submitted: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 January 2005 by Ekabe International SCA, established in Luxembourg, represented by Charles de Haas, lawyer.
   Puleva SA was also a party to the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal in so far as it confirmed the rejection of the application for Community trade mark OMEGA 3 No 824 573 following Opposition No B 148 132;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               CEMA. The mark was transferred to Primalliance and subsequently to Ekabe International.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative mark ‘OMEGA 3’ for goods in Class 29 (margarine) — application No 824 573

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Puleva SA

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word mark ‘PULEVA-OMEGA 3’ in respect of goods in Class 29 (Meat, fish, poultry and game; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; eggs, milk and milk products, etc)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case C-428/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of that Court of 15 November 2002 in the case of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against Skatteministeriet

text:
C 55/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
1.     Must Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the Community Cus-                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
       toms Code) and Regulation No 2454/93 ( 2) (the regu-                 hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case
       lation implementing the Community Customs Code), in                  of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik &
       particular Article 379(1) of the regulation implementing                                      Partner GmbH
       the Community Customs Code, be construed as meaning
       that the customs debt arising by reason of an offence or
       irregularity in connection with external Community                                           (Case C-446/02)
       transit cannot be recovered by the office of departure
       from the principal if the principal did not, before the end
       of the eleventh month following the date of registration                                      (2003/C 55/12)
       of the Community transit declaration, receive the notifi-
       cation referred to in Article 379 of the regulation
       implementing the Community Customs Code?
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.     Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
       an administrative instruction for the transmission of
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the
       information laid down in the Customs Code Committee
                                                                            Court Registry on 10 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
       (early warning system) or that the authorities in the office
                                                                            in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik
       of departure can be criticised for failure to notify in good
                                                                            & Partner GmbH on the following questions:
       time have any bearing on the answer to this question?
                                                                            1.   Does an entitlement to an export refund exist at least at
( 1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.                                                      the rate of refund applicable to the product actually
( 2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.                                                      exported where it is established during a control by
                                                                                the customs authorities that the declared and exported
                                                                                consignment did not consist entirely of the declared
                                                                                product but contained a proportion of another product
                                                                                to which a lower rate of refund applied?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret                   2.   Does the fact that the product which was incorrectly
by order of that Court of 15 November 2002 in the case                           declared is similar to that actually declared have any
of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against Skattemini-                          bearing on the decision?
                                steriet
                                                                            3.   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, in accordance
                          (Case C-428/02)                                        with which criteria must it be determined whether the
                                                                                declaration also covers the incorrectly declared goods?
                           (2003/C 55/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 15 November 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 26 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against
Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following             Appeal brought on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG
questions:                                                                  against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1)     Must Article 13.B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council             European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS
       Directive 77/388) (1) be construed as meaning that the               Saat AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       term ‘letting of immovable property’ includes the letting                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
       of a boat site consisting of a section of a land-based port
       area and of a defined and identifiable water-based area?
                                                                                (Case C-447/02 P)
2)     Must Article 13.B(b)(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
       construed as meaning that the term ‘vehicles’ includes
       boats?                                                                                (2003/C 55/13)
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).                     by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS Saat
                                                                            AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market


title: Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Spain v Commission (State aid — Shipbuilding — Tax provisions applicable to certain agreements for the financing and acquisition of vessels — Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery in part — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Advantage — Selective nature — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Shipbuilding - Tax provisions applicable to certain agreements for the financing and acquisition of vessels - Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery in part - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Advantage - Selective nature - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 059/16)
   Language of the cases: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, N. Díaz Abad and, subsequently, M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado) (Case T-515/13); Lico Leasing, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA (Madrid) (represented by: M. Merola and A. Sánchez, lawyers) (Case T-719/13)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, M. Afonso, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (OJ 2014 L 114, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013, on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, SA and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case T-380/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2008 — Kaloudis v OHIM — Fédération française de tennis (RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR — Previous national word mark Roland Garros — Late payment of the appeal fees — Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2008 — Kaloudis v OHIM — Fédération française de tennis (RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR)
   (Case T-380/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR - Previous national word mark Roland Garros - Late payment of the appeal fees - Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded)
   (2008/C 313/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimitrios Kaloudis (Dassia, Greece) (represented by: G. Kaloudis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Fédération française de tennis (FFT) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 876/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Fédération française de tennis (FFT) and Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action is as being in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law and in part manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-664/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L. v Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L. v Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.
   (Case C-664/11)
   2012/C 80/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Serveis en Impressió i Retolació Vargas, S.L.

      Defendant: Banco Mare Nostrum, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               If a credit institution offers a client an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on previous financial transactions, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point (4) of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive? (1)

               2.

               Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?

               3.

               In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?

               4.

               Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan that has been concluded with the institution itself or with a different institution constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?

               5.

               In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2001 in Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
19.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/13
1.    The Commission’s application is dismissed.                          Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: P. Oliver) — application for interim
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                 measures in connection with an action under Article 230 EC
                                                                          for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 January
                                                                          2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the
                                                                          alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General
                                                                          Council of the Bar of England and Wales, the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 29 March 2001, the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              operative part of which is as follows:
                              INSTANCE
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                          of 29 March 2001
in Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                     2.    The costs are reserved.
                   the European Communities
 (Action for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)
                           (2002/C 17/22)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                                         of 3 October 2001
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and R. Lyal) — application                 in Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff v European
for interim measures in connection with an action under                                               Parliament (1)
Article 230 EC for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
7 July 2000 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the            (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General                             measure — No need to adjudicate)
Medical Council — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 29 March 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (2002/C 17/24)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                          In Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, represented by L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Y. Pantalis and D. Moore) — application for annulment of the
                              INSTANCE                                    decision of the Parliament to regard as irregular the absence of
                                                                          the applicant from 21 March 2000 to 30 April 2000 and to
                                                                          deduct that absence from her annual leave entitlement —
                          of 29 March 2001                                the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
in Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                      H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 October 2001, the
                   the European Communities                               operative part of which is as follows:
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
                               Urgency)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.
                           (2002/C 17/23)                                 2.    The Parliament shall bear the entire costs.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ 2001 C 173.
In Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: Case T-355/05: Action brought on  12 September 2005  — Vandaele v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/13

         Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Vandaele v Commission
   (Case T-355/05)
   (2005/C 315/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Vandaele (Bertem, Belgium) (represented by: S.Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the decision appointing the applicant a member of the temporary staff of the European Communities in so far as it fixes her recruitment grade in accordance with Article 2 of the decision of 28 April 2004 on the engagement of temporary staff.

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took part in selection procedure OLAF/T/B/02 initiated by the Commission to fill temporary staff positions at Grade B in the Anti-fraud Office. By letter of 28 October 2002, she was informed that her name had been included on the list of suitable candidates. However, she did not begin working for the Commission, for OLAF, until 1 September 2004, although the procedure for her engagement had begun at the end of 2003. Her contract, signed on 3 November 2004, classified her at Grade B*4, in accordance with the Commission's decision of 28 April 2004 on the engagement of temporary staff, under which temporary personnel are engaged at Grade A*8 or B*4.
   By her action, the applicant challenges her classification. She submits that the Commission, by its decision of 28 April 2004, amended the call for candidatures to Category B, where the minimum grade, at the time of that call's publication, was Grade B5 (renamed B*5 under the new Staff Regulations). Such an amendment, which occurred after the list of successful candidates had been drawn up, infringes Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and the third paragraph of Article 10 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, as well as the applicant's prospects of being recruited to one of the vacant posts intended to be filled by successful candidates in the selection procedure to which she had been admitted.
   In addition, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of equal treatment to the extent that successful candidates in the same procedure who were recruited prior to 1 May 2004, and classified in accordance with the previous rules, were classified at higher grades and benefit from better conditions for career progress.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of her legitimate expectation that she will be recruited at Grade B2 or B3 without unjustified delay.


title: Case T-578/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power GmbH v EUIPO (Representation of white lines and bricks on a black background)
   (Case T-578/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus and S. Stöcker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by E. Zaera Cuadrado, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2780/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white lines and bricks on a black background.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-102/13 P: Order of the Court of 3 July 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — Action for annulment — Period for bringing proceedings — Validity of the notification of a Commission decision to the Permanent Representation of a Member State — Determination of the date of that notification — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/27

         Order of the Court of 3 July 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-102/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - Period for bringing proceedings - Validity of the notification of a Commission decision to the Permanent Representation of a Member State - Determination of the date of that notification - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 315/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T.Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8 June 2013.


title: Case T-85/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Exalation v OHIM (Vektor-Lycopin) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Vektor-Lycopin — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Exalation v OHIM (Vektor-Lycopin)
   (Case T-85/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Vektor-Lycopin - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 234/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Exalation Ltd (Ilford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2007 (Case R 1037/2007-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vektor-Lycopin as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Exalation Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-209/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
   (Case C-209/10)
   2010/C 179/40
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

      Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

      Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that selective price reductions on the part of a dominant postal undertaking that has a universal service obligation to a level lower than the postal undertaking’s average overall costs, but higher than the provider’s average incremental costs, can constitute exclusionary abuse, if it is established that the prices are not set at that level for the purpose of eliminating a competitor?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is that a selective price reduction in the circumstances outlined in question 1 can, in certain circumstances, constitute exclusionary abuse, what are the circumstances that the national court should take into account?


title: Case T-615/11: Action brought on 6 December 2011 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus AS v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/36

         Action brought on 6 December 2011 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus AS v Commission
   (Case T-615/11)
   2012/C 32/72
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus AS I/S (Århus, Denmark) (represented by: B. Jacobi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 20.09.11 on the measure No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly approved the aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, on the grounds that:

                           —

                           Article 107(3)(c) TFEU does not allow for approval of aid to part of an economic area;

                           —

                           the aid does not fulfil the requirement in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU that it must facilitate the development of certain economic areas;

                           —

                           the aid affects trading conditions in a manner contrary to the common interest, and accordingly

                           —

                           the aid does not serve a properly documented purpose of European interest.

                     The applicant further submits that the exception in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU must be interpreted restrictively and that that provision does not allow for the grant of State aid on the basis of State financial considerations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission approved the aid contrary to the Court’s case-law on operating aid. The applicant submits that the aid in question, which is granted as permanent aid in the form of a tax reduction, amounts to operating aid which, according to settled case-law, cannot be approved in a case such as the present one.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the proportionality principle, since the objectives of the Danish legislation can be achieved without State aid being granted.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the Commission made an incorrect assessment in finding, incorrectly, that the aid is necessary in order to give incentive to online gaming providers to apply for a Danish licence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misused its powers by referring to a Treaty provision which gives authority to approve aid intended to facilitate the development of an economic area, whilst, by contrast, it is apparent from the decision that the actual reason for approving the aid is the wish to attract a suitable number of applicants for a Danish online gaming licence. The applicant adds that the Commission misuses its powers when it gives as grounds for the approval the objective of liberalising and facilitating the development of an economic area, whilst the Danish State itself states that the overall objective of the tax scheme is to generate as much tax revenue as possible.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons, in that the reasons:

                           —

                           are generally inconsistent and self-contradictory on a number of points;

                           —

                           fail to provide a sufficient explanation as to how liberalisation of the gaming market is a legitimate purpose to pursue through approvals on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU;

                           —

                           do not give a satisfactory explanation of the Commission’s interpretation of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU;

                           —

                           do not document the need for State aid or give a sufficient account of taxation in other Member States;

                           —

                           lack clarity as to the objectives of the Danish Gaming Duties Act;

                           —

                           fail to address Danish legislation covering other forms of gaming;

                           —

                           contain no examination or explanation of the effects of the aid on land-based gaming operations.


title: Case C-51/04: Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
3.4.2004               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 85/17
Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of                 Are Article 1 of Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and clauses 1(b) and
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded
                                                                       by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and put into effect by that directive
                          (Case C-51/04)                               to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law (in
                                                                       force before the directive was implemented) which differentiate
                                                                       between employment contracts signed with the public auth-
                          (2004/C 85/29)                               orities and contracts with employers in the private sector
                                                                       by excluding the former from the protection afforded by
                                                                       establishing an employment relationship of indefinite duration
                                                                       in the event of an infringement of binding rules on successive
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             fixed-term contracts?
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Febru-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-           (1) OJ L 175 of 10.7.1999, p. 43.
nidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
      notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/69/EC (1) of the European Parliament and          Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit             of the European Communities against the Republic of
      values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air,                                        Finland
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 10 of that directive;                                                        (Case C-56/04)
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/31)
Pleas in law and arguments
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The period for transposition of the directive into national law        10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
expired on 13 December 2002.                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks and M. Huttunen,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000, p. 12.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the
                                                                             harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       rights in the information society (1), since it has not
Genova by order of that Court of 21 January 2004 in the                      brought into force the laws, regulations and administrat-
case of Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda                            ive provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or
Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche                        at least has not informed the Commission of them;
                 Universitarie Convenzionate
                                                                       2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                          (Case C-53/04)
                          (2004/C 85/30)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova               on 22 December 2002.
of 21 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on
10 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       (1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda Ospedaliera
Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie
Convenzionate on the following question:


title: Case T-367/12: Action brought on 10 August 2012 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

         Action brought on 10 August 2012 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)
   (Case T-367/12)
   2012/C 319/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2012 in case R 2532/2011-2, and render the registration of the contested trade mark application as a Community trade mark with regard to all goods and services concerned; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MOL Blue Card’ for among other goods and services in classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No W01030440

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8549172 of the word mark ‘BLUE’ for among others services in class 35; Community trade mark registration No 2065621 of the word mark ‘BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in classes 35 and 36; Community trade mark registration No 2277291 of the word mark ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and refused the application for all services in classes 35 and 36

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-201/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen) — Belgische Staat v Molenbergnatie NV (Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Duty to notify the debtor of the amount of duty owed as soon as it has been entered in the accounts and before the expiry of a period of three years from the date when the debt was incurred — Definition of  appropriate procedures )

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen) — Belgische Staat v Molenbergnatie NV
   (Case C-201/04) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Duty to notify the debtor of the amount of duty owed as soon as it has been entered in the accounts and before the expiry of a period of three years from the date when the debt was incurred - Definition of ‘appropriate procedures’)
   (2006/C 131/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgische Staat

      Defendant: Molenbergnatie NV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Temporal application — Recovery of a customs debt incurred before the regulation became applicable — Interpretation of Article 221 of the Community Customs Code — Duty to notify the debtor of the amount of duty owed as soon as it has been entered in the accounts and to effect such notification no later than three years from the date when the customs debt was incurred.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Only the procedural rules set out in Articles 217 to 232 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code apply to the recovery, commenced after 1 January 1994, of a customs debt incurred prior to that date.

               2.

               Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 requires the amount of import or export duty to be entered in the accounts before it is communicated to the debtor.

               3.

               On expiry of the period prescribed by Article 221(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, an action for recovery of a customs debt is time-barred subject to the exception laid down in that article, which amounts to the debt itself being time-barred and, consequently, extinguished. In the light of the rule thus established, Article 221(3) must be considered, unlike Article 221(1) and (2), to be a substantive provision and cannot, therefore, be applied to recovery of a customs debt incurred prior to 1 January 1994. Where the customs debt was incurred prior to 1 January 1994, that debt can be governed only by the rules on limitation in force at that date, even if the procedure for recovery of the debt was commenced after 1 January 1994.

               4.

               Member States are not required to adopt specific procedural rules on the manner in which communication of the amount of import or export duties is to be made to the debtor where national procedural rules of general application can be applied to that communication, which ensure that the debtor receives adequate information and which enable him, with full knowledge of the facts, to defend his rights.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Case C-41/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Gerard Dowling and Others v Minister for Finance (Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 — European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism — Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU — European Union financial assistance to Ireland — Recapitalisation of national banks — Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Articles 8, 25 and 29 — Recapitalisation of a bank by means of judicial direction order — Increase in share capital without general meeting decision and without the shares issued being offered on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders — Issue of new shares at a price lower than their nominal value)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Gerard Dowling and Others v Minister for Finance
   (Case C-41/15) (1)

   ((Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 - European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism - Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU - European Union financial assistance to Ireland - Recapitalisation of national banks - Company law - Second Directive 77/91/EEC - Articles 8, 25 and 29 - Recapitalisation of a bank by means of judicial direction order - Increase in share capital without general meeting decision and without the shares issued being offered on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders - Issue of new shares at a price lower than their nominal value))
   (2017/C 006/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

      Defendant: Minister for Finance

      Intervening parties: Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc, Permanent TSB plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1) and Articles 25 and 29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of [the second paragraph of Article 54 TFEU], in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as the Direction Order at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in a situation where there is a serious disturbance of the economy and the financial system of a Member State threatening the financial stability of the European Union, the effect of that measure being to increase the share capital of a public limited liability company, without the agreement of the general meeting of that company, new shares being issued at a price lower than their nominal value and the existing shareholders being denied any pre-emptive subscription right.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015


title: Case C-65/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium)) — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 11(2) and (4) — Established public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee — Refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she has not completed, as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required in order to be eligible to receive certain social benefits)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium)) — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)
   (Case C-65/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 11(2) and (4) - Established public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee - Refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she has not completed, as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required in order to be eligible to receive certain social benefits))
   (2015/C 236/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle

      Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM)

      Intervening party: Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes (IEFH)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from granting a worker a maternity allowance on the ground that, as an established public servant having obtained non-active status for personal reasons in order to work as a salaried employee, she has not completed, in the context of her work as a salaried employee, the minimum contribution period required under national law in order to be eligible to receive that maternity allowance, even if she has worked for over 12 months immediately prior to the presumed date of confinement.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2003 in Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Annual leave — Posting to a third country — Objection of illegality)

text:
C 171/22                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 May 2003
                       of 26 February 2003
                                                                             in Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-184/00: Zisis Khristou Drouvis v Commission
                of the European Communities ( 1)                             (Officials — Annual leave — Posting to a third country —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/32)
(Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Legality of
Article 82(1), second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations —                                        (Language of the case: French)
Principle of equal treatment — Principles of freedom of
movement for workers and freedom of establishment within
                          the Community)
                                                                             In Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman, official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                             Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an
                          (2003/C 171/31)                                    address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and
                                                                             F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           decision of 25 May 2000 by which the Commission reduced
                                                                             the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one day — the Court
                                                                             of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                             President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on
In Case T-184/00 Zisis Khristou Drouvis, a former official of                7 May 2003 in which it:
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Maroussi, Attica (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer,              1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 25 May 2000 in so
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the                              far as it reduces the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                          day;
and P. Anestis), supported by the Council of the European                    2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Union (Agents: D. Zahariou and A. Pilette) — application
seeking the amendment of the Commission’s decision, notified
to the applicant on 30 November 1999, determining his                        (1 ) OJ C 95, 24. 3. 2001.
pension and applying the weighting for Greece, so that the
weighting applied is the same as that on pensions paid to
pensioners residing in the United Kingdom or, in the alterna-
tive, the same as that on pensions paid to pensioners residing
in Belgium — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                                of 20 May 2003
26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                             (Officials — Open competitions — Oral test — Exclusion
2.     Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.                   from the list of successful candidates — Knowledge of
                                                                             languages of the members of the selection board — Equal
                                                                                treatment)
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ No C 335 of 25.11.00.
                                                                             In Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner, residing in Luxem-
                                                                             bourg, represented by L. Thielen, lawyer, against Commission


title: Case T-232/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/53

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission
   (Case T-232/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/90
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SCA Hygiène Products (Tremblay-en-France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               SCA Hygiène Products is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-792/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (ojo sunglasses)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/41

         Action brought on 14 November 2016 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (ojo sunglasses)
   (Case T-792/16)
   (2017/C 022/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ojo sunglasses’ – EU trade mark No 13 224 761

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 in Case R 32/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs and legal fees of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T -274/00: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2005 — Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2005 — Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ v Commission
   (Case T -274/00) (1)

   (2005/C 281/61)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 23.12.2000.


title: Case F-73/06: Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/37

         Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case F-73/06)
   (2006/C 190/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the director of EPSO's decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in competition EPSO/A/19/04;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro, by way of compensation for his non-material damage;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to be left to the Tribunal's discretion, by way of compensation for his material damage, consisting of his loss of the opportunity of being appointed to a higher grade;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant first claims infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the principle of equal treatment, in that neither the contested decision nor the administration's response to the applicant's complaint has enabled him to understand the mark he was awarded when the written test was marked and still less the value judgment made on his performance.
   The applicant pleads, in addition, infringement of the principle of sound administration, inasmuch as the evaluation sheet for his written test is too general and imprecise and the copies of that test paper are not marked in any way.


title: Case C-364/06: Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/8

         Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-364/06)
   (2006/C 249/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Forms of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/15/EC into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  JO 2002 L 80, p. 35.


title: Case T-618/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2008 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Scope of review — Assessment report — Plea of illegality — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages — Lis pendens)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-618/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2008 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Scope of review - Assessment report - Plea of illegality - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages - Lis pendens)
   2013/C 313/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claim seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr De Nicola before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-13/10;

               4.

               Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and half of the costs incurred by the EIB relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal;

               5.

               Orders the EIB to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-590/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/24

         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-590/16)
   (2017/C 030/29)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Flavia Tomat and Aikaterini Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, as provided for in Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by enacting and retaining in force legislation which permits petroleum products to be made available without excise duty being charged by the filling stations of the company Katastimata Aforologiton Eidon A.E. at the border posts located at Kipoi in Evros, at Kakavia and at Evzonoi, all of which are in areas bordering on third countries, specifically Turkey, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia respectively, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               According to the reasoned opinion of 1 September 2014 which the Commission sent to the Greek authorities, by its approval of the fact that the filling stations held by the company Katastimata Aforologiton Eidon A.E. at the border posts located at Kipoi in Evros, at Kakavia and at Evzonoi make petroleum products available on which excise duty is not charged, Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2008/118 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty, as Greece does not consider that making those products available constitutes actual release for consumption. The direct supply of vehicles with fuel at those filling stations constitutes release for consumption and is subject to excise duty.

               2.

               The deviations from the basic rule that duty is due in the Member State where consumption occurs are expressly laid down by the EU legislature. The application, when petroleum products subject to excise duty are made available, of simplified procedures for export to a third country is contrary to Directive 2008/118, since it does not fall within the scope of any of the relevant provisions of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.