title: Case T-671/16: Action brought on 20 September 2016 — Vincent Villeneuve v Commission

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/52

         Action brought on 20 September 2016 — Vincent Villeneuve v Commission
   (Case T-671/16)
   (2016/C 419/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vincent Villeneuve (Montpellier, France) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/303/15 (AD 7) of 5 November 2015 concerning the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the contested decision does not explain the reasons why the applicant does not have sufficient professional experience in the field of the competition for his application to be admitted to the next stage of that competition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the selection board, in that the verification of the minimum professional experience in the field of the competition which the selection board was initially required to conduct could not relate to the applicant’s suitability for the vacancy and to the selection criteria set out in that regard given that the verification stage for the admission criteria takes place during the final stages of the competition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions and also procedural defects and a consequent manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment of candidates with regard to the selection based on qualifications.


title: Case F-103/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Trampuz v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Sickness insurance scheme — Recovery of advance payment of medical expenses — Implementation of an annulment judgment of the General Court — Plea of inadmissibility — Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Act adversely affecting an official — Pension statement — Requirement to make a claim — Out of time — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/56

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Trampuz v Commission
      (Case F-103/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Social security - Sickness insurance scheme - Recovery of advance payment of medical expenses - Implementation of an annulment judgment of the General Court - Plea of inadmissibility - Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Pension statement - Requirement to make a claim - Out of time - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/73)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Serena Trampuz (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14 207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of recovery of advances made in the direct billing of accommodation costs during the hospitalisation of the applicant’s spouse after the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the Ispra claims office, making the applicant responsible for payment of all the accommodation costs of the hospitalisation which were considered excessive.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Ms Serena Trampuz shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 55.


title: Case C-194/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-194/11) (1)

   2012/C 366/50
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-221/02: Action brought on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of             The applicants are contesting the change in the calculation
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of            method used by the Commission up until 1996 and/or 1997
equal treatment and of the principle that officials should have            in relation to the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
reasonable career prospects and manifest error of assessment
and failure to provide reasons.
                                                                           They point out in that regard that the travel expenses in
                                                                           question were previously calculated on the basis of the cost of
The promotions committee awarded the applicant additional                  a first class rail ticket for a journey passing through Yugoslavia,
points in order to ensure that he was not penalised for his                regardless of the final destination. The new method involves
mobility. The Commission however does not provide any                      taking into consideration, in respect of certain destinations, a
explanation of how those additional points were taken into                 journey via Brindisi to the various Greek frontier posts based
consideration when examining the comparative merits of the                 on the cost of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket.
candidates. Neither does it explain why it promoted persons
whose total points were fewer than those of the applicant.
                                                                           In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                                Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch
                                                                                as the change in the method of calculating the travel
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                                expenses in issue has resulted in the persons concerned
and Others against the Commission of the European                                being treated differently from their colleagues whose
                          Communities                                            place of origin is located in northern Greece. Whereas,
                                                                                for part of Greece, the sum continues to be calculated on
                        (Case T-221/02)                                          the basis of a journey via Yugoslavia, the same calculation
                                                                                cannot be carried out for the rest of Greece;
                        (2002/C 247/27)                                    —     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                the persons concerned have been denied the possibility
                   (Language of the case: French)                                of presenting to the competent authority their views on
                                                                                the choice of itinerary and the tariff to be taken into
                                                                                account;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       reasons, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
European Communities on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                          expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
and 63 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer,                       welfare and interests of officials.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from 1996 and/or 1997, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling           Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken             against the Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration for certain destinations;
                                                                                (Case T-224/02)
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the competent hier-
      archical authority to reimburse, with effect from 1996
      and/or 1997, the cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to                                        (2002/C 247/28)
      various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras)
      on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
      implementing the decisions annulment of which is
      sought;                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat
      Commission to pay those costs.                                       Icardo, represented by M. Lucas, lawyer.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 December 1995 in Case C-317/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hannover): Inge Nolte v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Article 4 (1) of Directive 79/7/EEC - Exclusion of minor employment from compulsory invalidity and old-age insurance)

text:
2 . 3 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 64/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Community law when the latter provision has not been
                     of 14 December 1995                             invoked by the litigant within a certain period.
in Case C-3 12/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from           (') OJ No C 189 , 13 . 7 . 1993 .
the Cour d'Appel, Brussels ): Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout
                 & Cie SCS v. Belgian State (')
(Power ofa national court to consider ofits own motion the
question whether national law is compatible with
                        Community law)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 64/01 )
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
                                                                     in Case C-3 17/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                (Language of the case: French)                       from the Sozialgericht Hannover): Inge Nolte v.
                                                                               Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover ( 1 )
                                                                     (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         security — Article 4 (1) ofDirective 79/7/EEC — Exclusion
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of minor employment from compulsory invalidity and
                                                                                old-age insurance)
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/02 )
In Case C-3 12/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel, Brussels for a                             (Language of the case: German)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Community                       published in the European Court Reports)
law concerning the power of a national court to consider of
its own motion the question whether national law is                  In Case C-3 17/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
compatible with Community law — the Court, composed                  of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht ( Social Court )
of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D.          Hannover, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents           pending before that court between Inge Nolte and
of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A.                   Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover — on the
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,           interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,                  of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,         the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
and H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, has given a                matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , 1979 , p. 24 ) — the
judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it rules :                   Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                     C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and G.
                                                                     Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
Community law precludes application of a domestic                    Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P.
procedural rule whose effect, in procedural circumstances            Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger,
such as those in question in the main proceedings, is to             Advocate-General, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
prevent the national court, seised of a matter falling within        Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
its jurisdiction, from considering of its own motion whether          14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
a measure of domestic law is compatible with a provision of          follows :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2 . 3 . 96
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                 national market for products from other Member States
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                  or does not impede such access more than it impedes
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                      access for domestic products within the distribution
security must be interpreted as not precluding national                     network, does not fall within the scope of Article 30 of
provisions under which employment regularly consisting of                   the EC Treaty;
fewer than 15 hours ' work a week and regularly attracting
remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly              3 . Articles 5, 90 and 86 of the EC Treaty do not preclude
salary is excluded from the statutory old-age insurance                     national legislation, such as that in force in Italy, from
scheme, even where they affect considerably more women                      reserving the retail sale of manufactured tobacco
than men, since the national legislature was reasonably                     products to distributors who have been authorized by
entitled to consider that the legislation in question was                   the State;
necessary in order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to
any discrimination on grounds of sex.                                 4 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national
                                                                            legislation, such as that in force in Italy, from penalizing
(!) OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7 . 1993 .                                           as a smuggling offence the unlawful possession by a
                                                                            consumer of manufactured tobacco products from
                                                                            other Member States on which excise duty in accord
                                                                            with Community law has not been paid, where the retail
                                                                            sale of those products is, like the retail sale of identical
                                                                            domestic products, reserved to distributors authorized
                                                                            by the State.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 14 December 1995                              ( 1 ) OJ No C 256 , 21 . 9 . 1993 .
in Case C-387/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): criminal
     proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero ( 1 )
(Articles 5, 30, 37, 85, 86, 90, 92 and 95 of the EC
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                               Treaty)
                                                                                14 December 1995
                           ( 96/C 64/03 )
                                                                      in Case C-444/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Sozialgericht Speyer): Ursula Megner and Hildegard
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      Scheffel v. Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz, now
                                                                                Innungskrankenkasse Rheinhessen-Pfalz ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
         published in the European Court Reports)                     security — Article 4(1) ofDirective 79/7/EEC — Minor and
                                                                      short-term employment — Exclusion from compulsory
                                                                      old-age insurance and sickness insurance and from the
In Case C-387/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      obligation to pay unemployment insurance contributions)
of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova
                                                                                96/C 64/04
( District Magistrate's Court, Genoa ) ( Italy ), for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that
court against Giorgio Domingo Banchero — on the                                        (Language of the case: German)
interpretation of Articles 5 , 30, 37, 85 , 86 , 90, 92 and 95 of
the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                          published in the European Court Reports)
( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.            In Case C-444/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, for the Registrar,           of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht ( Social Court )
has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , the operative              Speyer ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
part of which is as follows :                                         proceedings pending before that court between Ursula
                                                                      Megner and Hildegard Scheffel and Innungskrankenkasse
 1 . Article 37 ofthe EC Treaty has no relevance with regard          Vorderpfalz, now Innungskrankenkasse Rheinhessen-Pfalz,
     to national legislation, such as that in force in Italy,          supported by Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz,
                                                                       Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit and Firma G. F. Hehl & Co . — on
     which reserves the retail sale of manufactured tobacco
     products to distributors authorized by the State,                 the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive
     provided that the State does not intervene in the                 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
     procurement choices of retailers;                                 implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
                                                                       and women in matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , 1979 ,
                                                                       p. 24 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 2 . national legislation, such as that in force in Italy, which       President, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward
     reserves the retail sale of manufactured tobacco                  and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler,
     products, irrespective of their origin, to authorized             J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P.
     distributors but does not thereby bar access to the               Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger,


title: Case T-223/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte 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 315/52

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission
   (Case T-223/13) (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 315/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG (Minden, Germany) (represented by: H. Weil, lawyer)

      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.

               Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-422/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/26

         Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-422/08)
   (2008/C 301/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and B. Schöfer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 30 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-305/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad — Recovery)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-305/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad - Recovery)
   2011/C 186/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by D. Del Gaizo and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2005/919/EC of 14 December 2004: Direct tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad (notified under document No C(2004) 4746) (OJ 2005 L 335, p. 39)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits, all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries all the aid granted under the aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/919/EC of 14 December 2004 [on direct] tax incentives in favour of companies taking part in trade fairs abroad, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2000 in Case C-291/98 P: Sarrió SA v Commission of the European Communities (Application for the re-opening of the written procedure and the opening of the oral procedure)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/11
— in sectors of the public service where women are under-represented,       Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) (Italy) for a
    gives priority, where male and female candidates have equal             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    qualifications, to female candidates where that proves necessary        court between Vincenzo Farina and Credito Italiano SpA —
    for ensuring compliance with the objectives of the women’s              on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
    advancement plan, if no reasons of greater legal weight are             (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) in the light of certain uniform
    opposed, provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are       bank rules which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana lays down
    the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the       for its members in relation to the conclusion of contracts for
    specific personal situations of all candidates,                         the opening of current account credit facilities and all-
                                                                            embracing guarantee agreements — the Court of Justice
— prescribes that the binding targets of the women’s advancement            (Second Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the
    plan for temporary posts in the academic service and for academic       Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and M. Skouris, Judges;
    assistants must provide for a minimum percentage of women               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
    which is at least equal to the percentage of women among                made an order on 28 January 2000, the operative part of
    graduates, holders of higher degrees and students in each               which is as follows:
    discipline,
                                                                            1. Uniform bank rules, inasmuch as they allow banks, in respect of
— in so far as its objective is to eliminate under-representation of            contracts for the opening of current account credit facilities, to
    women, in trained occupations in which women are under-                     modify at any moment the interest rate by reason of changes on
    represented and for which the State does not have a monopoly of             the money market, by means of a notice posted on their premises
    training, allocates at least half the training places to women,             or by such method as they consider most appropriate, do not
    unless despite appropriate measures for drawing the attention of            have as their object or effect the restriction of competition within
    women to the training places available there are not enough                 the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article
    applications from women,                                                    81(1) EC);
— where male and female candidates have equal qualifications,               2. Uniform bank rules relating to the all-embracing guarantee
    guarantees that qualified women who satisfy all the conditions              covering the opening of current account credit facilities and
    required or laid down are called to interview, in sectors in which          derogating from the general law applied to guarantees, such as
    they are under-represented,                                                 those at issue in the main proceedings, are not capable, taken as
                                                                                a whole, of affecting trade between Member States within the
— relating to the composition of employees’ representative bodies               meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
    and administrative and supervisory bodies, recommends that the
    legislative provisions adopted for its implementation take into         3. The application of those uniform bank rules does not constitute
    account the objective that at least half the members of those               an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article
    bodies must be women.                                                       86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
                                                                            (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
                         of 28 January 2000                                 in Case C-291/98 P: Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-138/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Genova): Vincenzo Farina v Credito                         (Application for the re-opening of the written procedure and
                            Italiano SpA (1)                                                the opening of the oral procedure)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                                                 (2000/C 149/19)
                          identical question)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2000/C 149/18)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-138/97: reference to the Court of Justice under                   In Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona (Spain),
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the                  represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.5.2000
the Rome Bar, and F.M. Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an                  exceptional cases since measures of that kind restrict trade
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,              between Member States. The importer of a food product must
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, appeal against the               be able to choose between maintaining the name under which
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the product is sold in the Member State of production or
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        adopting the name under which similar products are sold in
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]                    the Member State of importation (1). Such freedom of choice
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             may only be restricted if the product presented under a
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                  particular name is so remote, as regards its composition or
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the                manufacture, from the goods usually known by that name in
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward, President                 the Community that it could not be regarded as falling into
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        the same category (2).
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: R. Grass, made an order on 9 March 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                      Chocolate containing up to 5 % vegetable fat other than cocoa
                                                                            butter produced in six Member States meets, as far as cocoa-
1. The requests by Sarrió SA that a hearing be held and, in the            related ingredients are concerned, the same composition
    alternative, that it be authorised to lodge a reply are rejected;       requirements as chocolate which contains no vegetable fat, the
                                                                            only difference being the presence of up to 5 % of such
                                                                            substances; it is accepted under the name ‘chocolate’ in almost
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                            all the Member States and it is manufactured under that name
                                                                            in six of them. It is referred to in Directive 73/241/EC itself by
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                  that name. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it
                                                                            cannot be alleged that the presence of such substances
                                                                            significantly alters the nature of the product to such an extent
                                                                            that the name ‘chocolate’ is misleading as to its essential
                                                                            characteristics. As regards consumer protection, the Com-
                                                                            mission considers that the inclusion on the label of a neutral
                                                                            and objective statement which informs consumers of the
                                                                            presence of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter is the best
                                                                            way of ensuring the free circulation of those products in Spain
Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            whilst at the same time ensuring that Spanish consumers are
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                            protected.
                                 Spain
                            (Case C-12/00)                                  (1) Point 18 of Communication 89/C 271/03 on the free movement
                                                                                of foodstuffs within the Community — OJ 1989 C 271, p. 3.
                           (2000/C 149/20)                                  (2) The conditions under which a Member State may legitimately
                                                                                reject the use of a name liable to mislead consumers are set out in
                                                                                the Commission Communication on trade names of food products
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       — OJ 1991 C 270, p. 2.
Court of Justice on 14 January 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Declare that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products                 Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
    to which vegetable fats other than cocoa butter have been               of the European Communities against the French Republic
    added and which have been lawfully produced in those
    Member States in which the addition thereof is permitted,                                          (Case C-24/00)
    from being marketed in Spain under the name used for
    their marketing in the Member State in which they
    originate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                                          (2000/C 149/21)
    obligations under Article 28 EC;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Pleas and principal arguments                                               and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant seconded
                                                                            to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obligation to change the                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
name under which a product is sold can only be justified in                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


               14.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 75/16

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 31 October 2012 in the case of Beatrix Koch, Dipl. Kfm. Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
   (Case E-11/12)
   2013/C 75/09
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 31 October 2012 from Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 November 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Beatrix Koch, Dipl. Kfm. Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the term unit-linked policies, within the meaning of Annex III A a11 and a12 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, refer exclusively to units (‘Common Funds’) within the meaning of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) or does Annex III A a11 and a12 also apply for example where payments from a life assurance contract are linked to a share index or other reference value?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered by the Court to the effect that Annex III A a11 and a12 of Directive 2002/83/EC does not restrict ‘unit-linked policies’ to investment companies (‘Common Funds’) within the meaning of Directive 85/611/EEC:

                           2.1.

                           Does Directive 2002/83/EC oblige assurance undertakings to provide policy holders with advice or simply to notify them of the details set out in Annex III of the said Directive?

                           2.2.

                           Is the duty to communicate information under Annex III A a11 of Directive 2002/83/EC sufficiently complied with if the assurance undertaking supplies the securities identification number (WKN), or, how else is ‘definition of the units’ to be understood in order to fulfil the requirement to communicate information? It must be borne in mind that the Member State of the commitment does not require any additional information from the assurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 36(3) of Directive 2002/83/EC.

                           2.3.

                           Is the duty to communicate information under Annex III A a12 of Directive 2002/83/EC sufficiently complied with if the assurance undertaking supplies the securities identification number (WKN) or should more detailed information be provided? It must be borne in mind that the Member State of the commitment does not require any additional information from the assurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 36(3) of Directive 2002/83/EC.

               3.

               Does Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC make it mandatory for the assurance undertaking to provide the details set out in Annex III A or is it sufficient if this information is given to the policy-holder by a third party, for example by an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation?

               4.

               Does Directive 2002/83/EC require that Article 36 be implemented into national law by the Member States in such a way that policy holders acquire a civil law right against the assurance undertaking to be notified of the details pursuant to Annex III, or is it sufficient for the implementation into national law if a breach of the duties to provide information under Annex III of the Directive is only subject to sanction by a regulatory body such as by the imposition of a fine, withdrawal of license or other similar measure?


title: Case C-531/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-531/06)
   (2007/C 42/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, Agent, G. Giacomini and E. Boglione, avvocati)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that,

                           (a)

                           by keeping in force legislation which restricts the right to operate private pharmacies to natural persons who have graduated in pharmacy and to companies composed exclusively of members who are pharmacists; and

                           (b)

                           by keeping in force legislative provisions which make it impossible for undertakings engaged in the distribution of pharmaceutical products to acquire shareholdings in the companies which manage municipal pharmacies,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prohibition on the acquisition of shareholdings in private pharmacies by natural persons who are not pharmacists or by undertakings which are not composed exclusively of pharmacists not only obstructs, but renders absolutely impossible for those categories of persons, the exercise of two fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, namely free movement of capital and freedom of establishment.
   The prohibition on the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which manage municipal and private pharmacies by undertakings engaged in pharmaceutical distribution can be inferred from several rules still in force in the Italian legal system and is very likely to be applied by the Italian courts. That prohibition constitutes an obstacle both to the free movement of capital and to the exercise of the right of establishment.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2004 in Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson v European Parliament (Temporary servant — Promotion to Grade A 3 — Staff of the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties)

text:
C 85/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             3.4.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               ed by É Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: L. Knudsen
                       of 14 January 2004                                 and D. Moore) — application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary Group of the
                                                                          European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting on 6 and
in Case T-109/01: Fleuren Compost BV v Commission of                      7 March 2001, to promote two temporary servants to
                the European Communities (1)                              Grade A 3 and, second, for compensation for the harm
                                                                          sustained by the applicant as a result of that promotion - the
(Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the                   Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
Kingdom of the Netherlands to manure-processing undertak-                 President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio
ings — Scheme approved by the Commission for a fixed                      González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
  period — Aid granted before or after the approved period)               judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:
                          (2004/C 85/45)                                  1.    Annuls the decision of the secretariat of the Parliamentary
                                                                                Group of the European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                on 6 and 7 March 2001, promoting Ms F. and Mr M. to
                                                                                Grade A 3 with effect from 1 March 2001;
In Case T-109/01, Fleuren Compost BV, established in Mid-                 2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
delharnis (Netherlands), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. di
Bucci and H. van Vliet): Application for the annulment of                 (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on
the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands for six manure-processing companies (OJ 2001 L 189,
p. 13), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pir-
rung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges;
J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 January 2004, in which it:
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                     of 21 January 2004
(1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                in Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Promotion — Omission from the list of officials
                                                                             promoted to Grade A 5 — Availability of staff reports)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 85/47)
                       of 21 January 2004
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson v European Parlia-
                              ment (1)
(Temporary servant — Promotion to Grade A 3 — Staff of
                                                                          In Case T-97/02: Prodromos Mavridis, an official of the
 the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
                                                                          sels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, with an
                          (2004/C 85/46)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, V. Joris and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the Com-
                                                                          mission’s decision of 6 April 2001 not to enter the applicant
                                                                          on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 in the 2001
                                                                          promotion round, the Court of First Instance, composed of
In Case T-328/01: Tony Robinson, a temporary servant of the               P. Mengozzi, Single Judge; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-           Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 January 2004, in which it:


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-120/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/100)
   By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-120/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case C-521/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 November 2014  — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 18 November 2014 — SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy
   (Case C-521/14)
   (2015/C 034/13)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SOVAG — Schwarzmeer und Ostsee Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

      Respondent: If Vahinkovakuutusyhtiö Oy

      Question referred

   Is Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as covering an action, such as that described above, on a warranty or guarantee or another equivalent claim closely linked to the original action, which is brought by a third party, as permitted by national law, against one of the parties with a view to its being heard in the same court proceedings?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C–11/09: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C–11/09) (1)

   2009/C 220/65

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-65/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/13
4.   If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is                  Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
     Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under                     requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
     Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive                     workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
     when an existing body has the task of providing compen-                  Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and
     sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
     relevant authority of the Member State that does not               —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     those respects, and:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     a)     that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
            the relevant authority of the Member State to
            provide compensation to victims which is directly           The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
            enforceable by the relevant authority and does not          by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
            give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to     to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
            claim against that body, but the victim may apply to        point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
            the Court for an order that the authority should            subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
            enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to      point 2.8.
            do so; and
                                                                        The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
     b)     that body carries out that obligation by accepting
                                                                        has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
            and paying claims from victims in accordance with
                                                                        89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
            that agreement; and
                                                                        law.
     c)     the Member State considered in good faith that the
            provision of that agreement gave at least as good
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
            protection to victims as the requirements of the            (2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
            Second Motor Insurance Directive?
5.   If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
     and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
     comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
     Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
     matter of Community law if it is established that such
     damage was caused?                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
                                                                                appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                                (Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/21)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
                                                                        the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
                          (Case C-65/01)                                Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                         (2001/C 118/20)                                in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
                                                                        questions:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February             1.    Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                                the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
                                                                              and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
                                                                              Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
     Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989                     labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     concerning the minimum safety and health requirements                    foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     for the use of work equipment by workers at work                         human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     (second individual Directive within the meaning of                       ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian                  offence when marketing foodstuffs:


title: Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Guy Tachelet against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-208/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 7/19
Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Olivier Brunet and                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                Ð annul the Commission's decision implicitly rejecting
                        (Case T-206/97)                                   the applicant's request that it give consideration to the
                           (98/C 7/56)                                    possible application of Article 31 (2) of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations,
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
An action against the Commission of the European                          decision of 11 April 1997 expressly rejecting the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant's complaint,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
by Olivier Brunet, residing in Brussels, Luigi Brusa,                Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
residing at Brazzaville (Congo), Peter Cavendish, residing
in Brussels, HeÂleÁne Chraye, residing in Brussels, Stella da        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Costa Santos, residing in Brussels, Tamara Diomede Basili,
residing in Brussels, Christina Laso Sanz, residing in
Brussels, GeÂrard Lhost, residing at Alsemberg (Belgium),            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Carlos Martinez Mongay, residing in Brussels, Viriato                relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).
Monteiro Da Silva, residing at Sint Stevens-Woluwe
(Belgium), Nicolioulas Panagiotis, residing in Brussels,             (1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
Carla Piccinni-Leopardi, residing in Brussels, Jorge
Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels,
Angelo Salsi, residing in Brussels, and Graham Willmott,
residing at Genval (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert
Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de               Action brought on 15 July 1997 by NoeÈlle Mattei against
Nassau.                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-209/97)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 7/58)
Ð annul the Commission's            decision   rejecting  their
    requests to be regraded,                                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the Commission's            decision   rejecting  their      An action against the Commission of the European
    administrative complaints,                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                              by NoeÈlle Mattei, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                     Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue
                                                                     de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (1).                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.                                      Ð annul the Commission's decision of 24 October 1996
                                                                          expressly rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                          Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Guy Tachelet against
                                                                          decision of 29 April 1997 expressly rejecting the
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          applicant's complaint,
                        (Case T-208/97)
                           (98/C 7/57)                               Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997                 relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).
by Guy Tachelet, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            (1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue
de Cessange.


title: Case T-144/13: Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Hanzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/24

         Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Hanzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology v Commission
   (Case T-144/13)
   2013/C 123/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hanzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590);

               —

               Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1);

               —

               And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law identical to that raised in Case T-143/13 Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission.


title: Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-19/97)

text:
No C 94/22         I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 3 . 97
notification of the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement              — order the defendant to pay him compensation equal to
on 5 July 1994 in relation to the joint exercise of rate                the remuneration which he would have received if he
making authority in respect of the inland portions within                had been reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 (4 )
the European Community of through-intermodal transport                    ( d) of the Staff Regulations, in the first post falling
services ('European Intermodal Authority').                              vacant, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                          8 % per annum from the date when such remuneration
                                                                         became due until the date when it is paid,
The applicants claim that the contested decision does not
purport to withdraw immunity from fines in respect of
European Intermodal Authority in any other context.                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
They submit that the contested decision is unlawful on the
following grounds, maintaining that each one of these
grounds is sufficient to justify its annulment:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the legal conditions established by the Court of Justice           Following a period of leave on personal grounds which
    for the withdrawal of immunity from fines are not met            commenced on 16 February 1991 , the applicant, a grade
    in this case,                                                    LA 7 official employed in Luxembourg, asked to be
                                                                     reinstated by fax of 15 December 1993 . He was reinstated
                                                                     in Unit G2 of the Translation Service in Luxembourg on
— the contested decision is incompatible with the order              16 February 1995 .
    of the President of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities in Case T-3 95/94 R [ 1995]
    ECR II, p. 595, upheld by the order of the President of          The applicant pleads infringement by the Commission of
    the Court of Justice in Case C-149/95 P(R),                      Article 40 (4 ) (d ) of the Staff Regulations, since it failed to
                                                                     verify the applicant's ability to satisfy the requirements of
                                                                     the two posts declared vacant in the German language
— the Commission infringed the applicants' rights of                 unit of the Translation Service in Brussels at the time
    defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of              when he asked to be reinstated, as well as three other
    the contested decision .                                         posts declared vacant in Units A2, D2 and E2 on
                                                                     20 January, 20 June and 22 November 1994.
                                                                     He further claims compensation in accordance with
                                                                     Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty, since he received
                                                                     no remuneration in respect of the period from
Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter                  15 December 1993 (the date of his request for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 reinstatement). It follows that the Commission is bound to
                        Case T-19/97)                                compensate him by paying him the remuneration which he
                                                                     would have received from the date of his request for
                         97/C 94/46 )                                reinstatement or, at the latest, from the date when the two
                                                                     posts were declared vacant, until the date of his
               (Language of the case: French)                        reinstatement, 16 February 1995 .
An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 January
1997 by Claude Richter, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                against the Commission of the European Communities
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( Case T-20/97)
SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/47 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting his request
    for compensation for the fault committed by it in not            An action against the Commission of the European
    reinstating the applicant in the first vacant post               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    corresponding to his grade and abilities,                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 January
                                                                     1997 by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ),
                                                                     Sofivo Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
— order the defendant to reconstitute the applicant's                established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,
    career with effect from 15 December 1993 or, at the              established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
    latest, from the date of publication of the first notice         established at Perigueux (France ), Serval, established at
    of vacancy of a post corresponding to his grade and              Sainte Eanne (France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
    abilities,                                                       Bourgbarre ( France), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand


title: Case C-174/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) by judgment of that court of 3 May 2000 in the case of Kennemer Golf & Country Club against Inspecteur Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Haarlem

text:
8.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 192/13
the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
12 November 1999, received at the Court Registry on 10 May                Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) by
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ANAS — Ente                 judgment of that court of 3 May 2000 in the case
Nazionale per le Strade against SCA RL CMC Cooperativa                    of Kennemer Golf & Country Club against Inspecteur
Muratori Cementisti Ravenna and SpA ICLA Costruzioni                        Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Haarlem
Generali and SpA Impresa Toto e Toto on the following
questions:
                                                                                (Case C-174/00)
(1) In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
     excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
     their tenders explanations concerning components of the                                        (2000/C 192/23)
     price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
     specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle to
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37? (1)             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 3 May
(2) Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining                 2000, received at the Court Registry on 9 May 2000, for a
     the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the            preliminary ruling in the case of Kennemer Golf & Country
     validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an ad      Club against Inspecteur Belastingdienst Particulieren/Onder-
     hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically so             nemingen Haarlem on the following questions:
     that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold in
     advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
     Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                    1. (a) Where it is necessary to establish whether or not
                                                                                a body aims to make a profit as referred to in
                                                                                Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive, must
                                                                                account be taken solely of earnings from the services
(3) Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place at                  referred to in that provision or must earnings from
     an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has                          other benefits provided by it also be taken into
     allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of an                  consideration?
     opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of the
     envelopes and before the adoption of the measure exclud-
     ing it, represent an obstacle to the application of                      (b) If, in determining whether or not the aim is to make a
     Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                            profit, account must be taken solely of the services
                                                                                supplied by the body as referred to in
                                                                                Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive and not total
                                                                                earnings, must only the costs incurred directly for
(4) Does a provision under which the contracting authority                        the services be taken into consideration or also a
     may take account of explanations relating solely to the                      proportion of the body’s other costs?
     economy of the construction method or the technical
     solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
     ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to           2. (a) Is there a direct link, within the meaning of inter alia
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                         the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities in Case 102/85 Apple and Pear Develop-
                                                                                ment Council [1988] ECR 1443, in the case of
(5) Does the [exclusion] of explanations relating exclusively to                  subscription fees charged by an association which,
     items for which minimum values have been established by                      pursuant to the object laid down in its articles of
     administrative provisions or can be inferred from official                   association, provides its members with sports facilities
     lists represent an obstacle to the application of                            in the context of an association and, if not, is the
     Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                            association to be regarded as a taxable person within
                                                                                the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive only
                                                                                in so far as it also provides benefits for which it receives
                                                                                direct consideration?
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works                  (b) Must the total amount of the annual subscription fees
    contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).                                      from the members whom the association provides
                                                                                with sports facilities be included in the earnings of a
                                                                                body in the form of an association which are to be
                                                                                taken into account in determining whether or not the
                                                                                aim is to make a profit as described in the first question
                                                                                even where no direct link exists between the various
                                                                                benefits provided by the association for its members
                                                                                and the subscription fee paid by them?
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
3. Does the fact that a body uses surpluses which it systemati-          3. Must        Article      1(e)     of     Commission      Decision
     cally aims to make for the purpose of its benefits in the                No 94/698/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that, by mak-
     form of a facility to play a type of sport as provided for               ing approval of the aid which it provides for subject to the
     in Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive justify the                condition that Portugal honour the undertaking to apply
     conclusion that it does not aim to make a profit within the              Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 to the Auton-
     meaning of that provision, or is such a conclusion                       omous Regions, with effect from 1 January 1996, by
     possible only where the intention is incidentally and not                publishing the public service obligations for the routes in
     systematically to make operating surpluses which are used                question (‘pursuant to Chapter IV, point III’), Portugal is
     as described? In answering these questions must account                  precluded from exercising the power granted to Member
     also be taken of the first indent of Article 13(A)(2) of the             States by Article 3(2)?
     Sixth Directive and, if so, how is that provision to be
     interpreted? In particular, in the second part of the
     provision must ‘systematically’ be read between ‘arising’
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
     and ‘shall’, or ‘merely incidentally’?
                                                                             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ
                                                                             1992 L 240, p. 8).
                                                                         (2) Commission Decision 94/698/EC of 6 July 1994 concerning
                                                                             increase in capital, credit guarantees and tax exemption in favour
                                                                             of TAP (Transportes Aéreos Portugueses) (OJ 1994 L 279, p. 29).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Plenary of the
First Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo,
by judgment of that court of 13 April 2000 in the case of
Flightline Ltd against Secretário de Estado dos Transpor-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de
tes e Comunicações and TAP — Transportes Aéreos                         Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5 de Oviedo (Court
                          Porguueses, SA                                 of First Instance and Preliminary Investigations, No 5,
                                                                         Oviedo) by order of that court of 13 April 2000 in the
                                                                         case of Victoria González Sánchez v Medicina Asturiana
                          (Case C-181/00)                                                                   SA
                         (2000/C 192/24)                                                            (Case C-183/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (2000/C 192/25)
European Communities by judgment of the Plenary of the First
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Administrative Court) of 13 April 2000, which was received
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Juzgado de Primera
at the Court Registry on 15 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         Instancia e Instrucción No 5 de Oviedo of 13 April 2000,
in the case of Flightline Ltd against Secretário de Estado dos
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 16 May 2000, for a
Transportes e Comunicações and TAP — Transportes Aéreos
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Victoria González Sánchez v
Porguueses, SA on the following question:
                                                                         Medicina Asturiana SA on the following question:
1. Does the exercise by a Member State of the rights and
     powers provided for by Article 4 of Council Regulation              Must Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July
     (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 necessarily presup-            1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     pose or mean that the power provided for in Article 3(2)            administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
     of that regulation of that Member State to be able to               liability for defective products be interpreted as meaning that
     restrict, until 1 April 1997, competition in cabotage               it precludes the restriction or limitation, as a result of
     services within its territory is waived?                            transposition of the Directive, of rights which had been granted
                                                                         to consumers by the legislation of the Member State?
2. May a Member State in a public tender procedure organised
     in 1995 for the provision of scheduled air services on a
     route subject to public service obligations imposed on              (1) OJ L 210, p. 29.
     such a route under Article 4 of the Regulation require air
     carriers licensed by another Member State which submit
     bids to meet the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of
     that same regulation?


title: Case C-241/17 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2017 by Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2017 in Case T-706/14, Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/14

         Appeal brought on 2 May 2017 by Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2017 in Case T-706/14, Holistic Innovation Institute v REA
   (Case C-241/17 P)
   (2017/C 221/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. (represented by: J.J. Marín López, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017, Holistic Innovation Institute v REA, T-706/14, EU:T:2017:89;

               —

               annul the decision of the Director of the Research Executive Agency of 24 July 2014 [ARES(2014) 2461172], terminating the negotiation with Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. and rejecting its participation in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC;

               —

               grant Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. compensation under the terms set out in paragraph 177 of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Error of law in that the General Court held, in the judgment under appeal, that the REA acted within its powers, and did not exceed the limits of the tasks assigned to it in relation to the management of the Seventh Framework Programme, in assessing Holistic Innovation Institute’s capacity and excluding it from the negotiations in the context of the projects Inachus and ZONeSEC (paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Error of law in that the General Court interpreted the first paragraph of Section 2.2.2, of the annex to Decision 2012/838 as meaning that it allows the REA to exclude Holistic Innovation Institute from the negotiation in the context of the projects Inachus and ZONeSEC (paragraph 126 of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Error of law in that General Court, in the judgment under appeal, held that the decision at issue was well founded (paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal) even though the decision at issue refers, as an integral part of its statement of reasons, first, to the Commission Decision [ARES (2014) 710158] of 13 March 2014 rejecting the appellant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project (paragraphs 57 and 60 to 62 of the judgment under appeal), and, secondly, to the final audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 (paragraphs 63 and 64 of the judgment under appeal), whereas both the Commission Decision of 13 March 2014 [ARES (2014) 710158] and the final audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 were the subject of actions for annulment.

               4.

               Error of law in that the General Court, in the judgment under appeal, distorted the assessment of the evidence adduced by asserting that the REA had requested certain information from the appellant ‘on numerous occasions’ (paragraph 75 of the judgment under appeal), that it had ‘repeated its request’ by letter of 14 May 2014 (paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal) and that there had been ‘several written exchanges between the REA and the [appellant]’ (paragraph 118 of the judgment under appeal).

               5.

               Error of law in that the General Court distorted, in the judgment under appeal, the assessment of the evidence adduced by referring, in paragraphs 8, 77 and 78, to a non-existent document which was not in the file.

               6.

               Error of law in that the General Court, in the judgment under appeal, found that the decision at issue was well founded (paragraphs 80, 84, 94, 108 and 127 of the judgment under appeal) even though it infringes Section 2.2.2 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838 since it disregards the positive evaluation of the appellant’s operational capacity carried out by independent external evaluators, without a ‘solid and well-supported line of argument’.

               7.

               Error of law in that the General Court failed to state reasons, in the judgment under appeal, for its assertion that ‘the [appellant] did not provide any evidence capable of invalidating the reasoning [of the REA]’ (paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal) and that its letter of 2 June 2014, attached to the appeal as Annex A.26, ‘reproduced a part of the information set out in the explanatory document referred to in paragraph 8 above, without however providing the specific information that the REA had sought, as indicated in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 above’ (paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal).

               8.

               Error of law in that the General Court considered, in the judgment under appeal, that the schedule set out in the negotiating mandates envisaged the end of the negotiation ‘on an indicative basis’ (paragraph 130 of the judgment under appeal).

               9.

               Error of law in that the General Court incorrectly held, in the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary to repair the material and immaterial damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the decision at issue (paragraphs 147, 148 and 150 of the judgment under appeal).