title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-119/94 P REV: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the European Communities (Application for revision - Inadmissible)

text:
 7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 370/ 1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 11 July 1996                                                  of 26 September 1996
in    Case     C- 11 9/94     P  REV:   Dimitrios   Coussios    v.
                                                                        in Case C-341/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
                                                                        by the Cour d'Appel, Paris ): criminal proceedings against
          Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                  Andre Allain and Steel Trading France Sari, as a party liable
             (Application for revision — Inadmissible)                                           at civil law ( 1 )
                                                                         (Customs declaration — Country of origin -— German
                            ( 96/C 370/01 )                                                unification — Penalties)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/02 )
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C- 11 9/94 P REV: Dimitrios Coussios ( represented
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
by Georgios Sakellaropoulos ) — application for revision of                       published in the European Court Reports)
the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case
C-l 19/94 P Coussios v. Commission [ 1995] ECR 1-1439,                  In Case C-341 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of              of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel ( Court of Appeal ),
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) —                 Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet,             pending before that court against Andre Allain and Steel
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and                 Trading France Sari, as a party liable at civil law — on the
C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate               consequences to be drawn, following the unification of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has delivered a judgment on               Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic
11 July 1996 in which it:                                               Republic, for trade in goods between the territory of the
                                                                        former German Democratic Republic and the rest of the
                                                                        Community's customs territory with regard to the possible
                                                                        reclassification of facts for the purpose of imposing
1 . dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;             penalties — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. N.
                                                                        Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
                                                                        H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 1996 ,
                                                                        the operative part of which is as follows:
(!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994, and
     OJ No C 189,22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                        The Community customs provisions, applicable following
                                                                        the unification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
                                                                        German Democratic Republic, do not preclude a


title: Case C-568/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v comtech GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 21 — Communication by telephone — Operation of a telephone line by a trader to enable consumers to contact him in relation to a contract concluded — Prohibition on applying a rate higher than the basic rate — Concept of ‘basic rate’)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/5

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v comtech GmbH
   (Case C-568/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Communication by telephone - Operation of a telephone line by a trader to enable consumers to contact him in relation to a contract concluded - Prohibition on applying a rate higher than the basic rate - Concept of ‘basic rate’))
   (2017/C 121/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

      Defendant: comtech GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘basic rate’ referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that call charges relating to a contract concluded with a trader to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line. Provided that that limit is respected, the fact that the relevant trader makes or does not make a profit through that telephone helpline is irrelevant.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-434/01: Action brought on 9 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
2.2.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 31/3
      limit is proportionate and necessary for the protection of       recovery the trainee’s maintenance claim against his parents,
      human health, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      which arises under private law and has been transferred to the
      obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;           plaintiff by statute, in respect of the period for which the
      and                                                              education grant was paid?
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 9 November 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the United
The competent Italian authorities prohibit the marketing of                                           Kingdom
energy drinks which, although lawfully manufactured and
marketed in other Member States, have a caffeine content in
excess of 125 mg/l. Such a prohibition constitutes an obstacle                                   (Case C-434/01)
to the free movement of goods prohibited by Article 28 EC.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/06)
In the present case, Article 30 EC cannot properly be relied
upon by the authorities in order to justify the abovementioned
prohibition on marketing of energy drinks inasmuch as the
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Italian authorities have not indicated on what scientific data
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
they based the adoption of the disputed prohibitive provisions
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
nor demonstrated the extent to which a caffeine content in
                                                                       represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
excess of 125 mg/l is harmful to public health.
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to ensure that the United Kingdom
                                                                             is in compliance with its obligations under Articles 12
                                                                             and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the United Kingdom
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                          has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive:
richtshof by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of
               Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blijdenstein                     —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-433/01)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2002/C 31/05)
                                                                       The Commission maintains that, by allowing decisions of local
                                                                       planning authorities, who are not relevant authorities for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 purposes of Article 12 and 16 of the directive, to pre-empt
European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by                  decisions by the national conservation bodies, the Agriculture
the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court), which was               Minister or Secretary of State for the Environment, as to
received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2001, for a               whether a derogation under Article 16(1) can be granted and
preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern v Jan               thus failing to correctly apply the two-pronged test laid down
Blijdenstein on the following question:                                in the first paragraph of Article 16(1) as well as the test of
                                                                       showing that imperative reasons of overriding interest exist,
                                                                       the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                       Articles 12 and 16 of the Directive.
May a plaintiff rely on the special rule on jurisdiction in
Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and             (1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention on the                    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                       22.7.1992, p. 7).
Republic of 26 May 1989, where its authorities have paid an
education grant to a trainee for a certain period of time under
public law and the plaintiff seeks to enforce in an action for


title: Case C-375/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 July 2015 — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
   (Case C-375/15)
   (2015/C 354/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG

      Respondent: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (‘the Payment Services Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that information (in electronic format) transmitted by the bank to the e-mail inbox of the customer as part of online banking (eBanking), so that the customer can retrieve this information by clicking on it after logging in to the eBanking website, has been provided on a durable medium?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
               Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of the Payment Services Directive to be interpreted as meaning that in such a case

                           (a)

                           the information from the bank is indeed provided on a durable medium, but not notified to the customer, merely made accessible to him, or

                           (b)

                           all that happens is that the information is made accessible without the use of a durable medium?

      (1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) 28 January 2004 in Case C-164/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities,

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   28 January 2004
   in Case C-164/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities, (1)

   (State aid - Aid for the processing of dredging silt - Measure notified to and authorised by the Commission - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 94/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-164/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and H. van Vliet), with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of Commission Decision SG (2002) D/228533 of 15 February 2002 relating to State aid No N 812/2001 concerning the Stimuleringsregeling verwerking baggerspecie (Rules on incentives to encourage the processing of dredging silt), in so far as the Commission takes the view therein that the contributions paid to port authorities pursuant to those rules constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC, the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 28 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible

               2.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.


title: Case C-184/09: Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-184/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/51

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case T-500/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/43

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-500/08)
   (2009/C 32/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void and that the Commission's decision of 31 October 2008 refusing access to the same documents is non-existent;

               —

               alternatively, declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's decision of 31 October 2008 refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Tampere-Pirkkala airport. The said decision was followed by the express decision of 31 October 2008. The annulment of the express decision is alternatively sought by the applicant in the present case.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

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


title: Case F-28/06: Action brought on  17 March 2006  — Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/19

         Action brought on 17 March 2006 — Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission
   (Case F-28/06)
   (2006/C 121/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's career development report (CDR) covering the reference period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004;

               —

               As far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material loss suffered, assessed on an equitable basis, reserving the right to increase their amount to EUR 5 000;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official with responsibility, inter alia, for conducting investigations into dumping practices, challenges the validity of his CDR in respect of the 2004 appraisal exercise.
   In his application, he submits that his immediate superior awarded him lower marks than he deserved, on account of his refusal to favour the interest of Community industry during his investigations.
   He also argues that the procedure followed in order to compile his CDR infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, the general provisions implementing that Article, the Appraisal Guide and the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Joint Evaluation Committee. The defendant also infringed the applicant's right to a defence and his right to an effective appeal procedure.
   The applicant is of the view, firstly, that his CDR is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and a failure to state the grounds and, secondly, that the defendant has infringed the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the duty of sound administration.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, inasmuch as the appraisal of his performance as unsatisfactory is simply a means of attempting to remove him from his position as an investigator.


title: Case T-642/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/50

         Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)
   (Case T-642/16)
   (2016/C 392/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Iame SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Mostardini, G. Galimberti, F. Mellucci and R. Kakkar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Parilla’ — European Union trade mark No 3 065 182

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 in Case R 608/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, on the ground of infringement of Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as that decision dismissed action R 608/2015-1 and confirmed the revocation for non-use of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41;
               and, accordingly:

               —

               dismiss the application for revocation under Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009 of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41;

               —

               reserve all rights to submit further pleas in law and evidence within the time-limits prescribed;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-101/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Pappas v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Pensions — Transfer to Community scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into service of the Communities — Withdrawal — Admissibility — Retirement in the interests of the service — Amount of pension)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/64

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Pappas v Commission
   (Case F-101/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Transfer to Community scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into service of the Communities - Withdrawal - Admissibility - Retirement in the interests of the service - Amount of pension)
   2009/C 282/120
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spyridon Pappas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Barattini and G. Mavros, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents.)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual rights determining the applicant’s retirement pension rights and of the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account to determine those rights.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Pappas to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, of 21.02.2009, p. 77


title: Case T-251/04: Action brought on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/34

         Action brought on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-251/04)
   (2004/C 217/61)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic, represented by V. Kontolaimos and I. Khalkias.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 47).

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, excluded from Community financing various expenditure effected by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables sector and in the sector of public storage, with the result that it is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure and is chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.
   More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to the public storage of rice for the financial years 1999-2001. The Commission cited as the reason for non-recognition the late bringing into intervention of part of the quantity of rice. In support of its action against the part of the decision concerning that expenditure, the Hellenic Republic claims that the principle of proportionality was infringed by the Commission's refusal to recognise force majeure owing to a lorry-drivers' strike. It also claims that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is infringed by reason of the failure of the Commission's services to state the Commission's position on the notification that it was envisaged that the bringing into intervention would be late for reasons of force majeure. The Hellenic Republic also alleges inadequate reasoning on the particular question of failure to keep within guidelines VI/5330/97 which provide for application of flat rate corrections when the actual level of the irregular payments cannot be determined.
   Another part of the expenditure which was excluded from financing concerns the correction for failure to pay the minimum price to producers of peaches. On that point of the contested decision, the Hellenic Republic acknowledges that producer organisations were paid directly rather than the processor, but cites exceptional circumstances which, in its view, justify that action, which it considers to be in keeping with the aim of the common agricultural policy and the common organisation of the market, asserting further that this did not occasion any harm. The Hellenic Republic maintains in addition that the amount of the correction was wrongly calculated.
   As regards the correction of 2 % in relation to the programme for helping deprived persons, the Hellenic Republic alleges that Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Regulation No 3149/92 (1) were misinterpreted, that the circumstances were wrongly assessed, and that there was inadequate reasoning.
   As regards the correction made to the three-year restructuring programme for fruit and vegetables, Greece alleges misinterpretation of Article 2 of Regulation No 3816/92 (2), mistaken assessment of the circumstances in the particular sense that what was achieved within the three-year period had to be paid for rather than what was functioning, just as restructuring action had to be paid for; this took place six months after the end of the three-year period and was paid for in the first six-month period of 2000.
   Lastly, the Hellenic Republic puts forward a general plea in support of annulment concerning all parts of the contested decision, asserting that the Commission did not have the power at the time to impose corrections for the periods at issue in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (4). These require that an evaluation of the expenditure to be corrected must be contained in the communication under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 with a view to calculating the 24-months preceding that communication in order for corrections to be imposed.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (OJ L 313 of 30.10.1992, p. 50).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3816/92 of 28 December 1992 providing for, in the fruit and vegetables sector, the abolition of the compensation mechanism in trade between Spain and the other Member States and allied measures (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1992, p. 10).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995, p. 6).


title: Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-317/96)

text:
 No C 336/22             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                   Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Directive
— declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                        93/60/EECf 1 ) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                         obligations under that directive and under the EC
     provisions necessary to comply with Directives                          Treaty,
     93/53/EEC ( 1 ), 93/54/EEC ( 2 ), 93/ 113/EC ( 3 ) and
     93/114/EC ( 4 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
     obligations under those Directives and under the EC
     Treaty,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                       Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
                                                                         for their implementation. In the present case, when the
                                                                         time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 , the Italian Republic had
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         not taken the steps necessary to comply in full with Directive
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member                93/60/EEC .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
for their implementation . In the present case, when the                 (') OJ No L 186 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 28 .
time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directives
93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC, on 1 January 1995 in respect of
Article 7 of Directive 93 / 113/EC and on 1 October 1994 in
respect of Directive 93/114/EC and the remaining
provisions of Directive 93/ 113/EC, the Italian Republic had
not taken the steps necessary to comply with those
Directives .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs
(M   OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 23 .                             gericht Wien by order of that court of 18 September 1996 in
(2 ) OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .                             the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels AG,
(3)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 17.                                     Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg
(4)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                                                   ( Case C-318/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/44 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien ( Administrative Court,
                                                                        Vienna ) of 18 September 1996 , which was received at the
Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis                      Court Registry on 30 September 1996 , for a preliminary
sion of the European Communities against the Italian                    ruling in the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels
                               Republic                                 AG, Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg on the
                                                                        following questions :
                          ( Case C-317/96 )
                            ( 96/C 336/43 )                              1.  Does     Article  17     of the     sixth Council Directive
                                                                             77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, prohibit a Member State from
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    charging a levy assessed at a fixed rate on the basis
                                                                             of:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                        ( a ) the turnover tax payable on supplies of goods and
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           other supplies made by other traders to the person


title: Case T-754/14: Action brought on 10 November 2014  — Efler and Others v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/39

         Action brought on 10 November 2014 — Efler and Others v Commission
   (Case T-754/14)
   (2015/C 034/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany), Pedro De Birto E. Abreu Krupenski (Lisbon, Portugal), Susan Vance George (Paris, France), Otto Jaako Kronqvist (Helsinki, Finland), Blanche Léonie Denise Weber (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), John Jephson Hilary (London, United Kingdom), Ileana-Lavinia Andrei (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: Professor B. Kempen)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 10 September 2014 on the refusal to register the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘STOP TTIP’ — C (2014)6501;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: By assuming that the proposed citizens’ initiative does not fall within its competence, the Commission infringed Article 11(4) TEU as well as Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 (1).

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission’s reasoning — that the intended recommendation to the Commission to withdraw the negotiating mandate for the ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (TTIP) is not directed at a ‘legal act’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) TFEU — is defective. For both the grant of the negotiating mandate and its withdrawal are decisions of the Council within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, which at the same time are ‘legal acts’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicants further submit that the Commission’s additional reasoning — that the citizens’ initiative against the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ (CETA) and TTIP cannot require the Commission to refrain from recommending the Council to accept the respective negotiated international agreements, and also cannot require the Commission to recommend a decision on the non-acceptance of the respective negotiated agreements — is also defective. For it is in no way apparent from Article 11(4) TEU, Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 that citizens’ initiatives directed at the abolition of existing legal acts or citizens’ initiatives directed at the non-adoption of proposed legal acts are to be inadmissible.

                           —

                           The applicants further submit that the non-registration of the ‘STOP-TTIP’ citizens’ initiative is also unlawful because, in any event, the proposed citizens’ initiative does not ‘manifestly’ fall outside the Commission’s competence in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the general principles of good administrative practice as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of equal treatment as provided for in Article 20 of the Charter

                           —

                           The applicant takes the view that, by refusing, in the applicant’s case, to register the citizens’ initiative directed against TTIP and CETA, although it previously registered a citizens’ initiative directed at the termination of the agreement with Switzerland on freedom of movement (‘Swiss-Out-Initiative’), the Commission did not observe those principles.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 October 1997 in Case C-160/94: Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Kingdom of Spain, supported by French Republic and Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Exclusive rights to import and export electricity)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 7/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 1. dismisses the application;
                     of 23 October 1997
                                                                     2. orders the Commission of the European Communities
in Case C-160/94: Commission of the European                              to pay the costs;
Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Kingdom of Spain,
        supported by French Republic and Ireland (1)                 3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                          Northern Ireland, the French Republic and Ireland, as
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                    interveners, to bear their own costs.
      Exclusive rights to import and export electricity)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 202, 23. 7. 1994.
                         (98/C 7/01)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          published in the European Court Reports)                                         of 23 October 1997
                                                                     in Case C-189/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-160/94: Commission of the European                         the Landskrona tingsrätt): criminal proceedings against
Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and Blanca                                        Harry FranzeÂn (1)
Rodríguez Galindo), supported by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: Lindsey                   (Articles 30 and 37 of the EC Treaty Ð Monopoly on the
Nicoll, assisted by David Anderson) v. Kingdom of Spain                               retail of alcoholic beverages)
(Agents: Alberto JoseÂ Navarro GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo                                       (98/C 7/02)
Díaz), supported by French Republic (Agents: Catherine
de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey), Ireland (Agent:                                  (Language of the case: Swedish)
Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke and
Jennifer Payne) Ð application for a declaration that, by
reserving to itself exclusive import and export rights for             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
electricity, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                     published in the European Court Reports)
obligations under Articles 30, 34 and 37 of the EC Treaty
and Article 48 of the Act concerning the conditions of               In Case C-189/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                 of the EC Treaty from the Landskrona tingsrätt for a
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302,              preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
15. 11. 1985, p. 23) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                 before that court against Harry FranzeÂn Ð on the
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm              interpretation of Articles 30 and 37 of the EC Treaty Ð
and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,             the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,           President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G.                   (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,                     de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, D.              Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   and L. Sevón, Judges, M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 1997 in                von Holstein, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
which it:                                                            judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-339/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Achten v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Achten v Commission
   (Case T-339/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/65)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-92/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)): Secretary of State for Social Security, Chief Adjudication Officer v. Rose Graham and Others (Equality between men and women - Invalidity benefits - Link with pensionable age)

text:
 No C 268/8            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                             court between G. H. E. J. Wielockx and Inspecteur der
                                                                     Directe Belastingen — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
                      of 11 August 1995                              the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
in Case C-63/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
Tribunal de Commerce, Mons ): Groupement National des                Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Négociants en Pommes de Terre de Belgique v. ITM                     Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward
               Belgium SA and Vocarex SA i 1 )                       ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn,
 (Free movement of goods — Prohibition of sales yielding             Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,
                   very low profit margins)                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
                          ( 95/C 268/15 )
               (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        a rule laid down by a Member State which allows its
                                                                     residents to deduct from their taxable income business
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         profits which they allocate to form a pension reserve but
         published in the European Court Reports)                    denies that benefit to Community nationals liable to pay tax
                                                                     who, although resident in another Member State, receive all
                                                                     or almost all of their income in the first State, cannot be
In Case C-63 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of      justified by the fact that the periodic pension payments
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                          subsequently drawn out of the pension reserve by the
( Commercial Court), Mons, for a preliminary ruling in the           non-resident taxpayer are not taxed in the first State but in
proceedings pending before that court between                        the State of residence — with which the first State has
Groupement National des Négociants en Pommes de Terre                concluded a double-taxation convention — even if, under
de Belgique v. ITM Belgium SA and Vocarex SA — on the                the tax system in force in the first State, a strict
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court            correspondence between the deductibility of the amounts
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,                 added to the pension reserve and the liability to tax of the
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ),             amounts drawn out of it cannot be achieved by generalizing
C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch , Judges; G.              the benefit. Such discrimination is therefore contrary to
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                    Article 52 of the EC Treaty.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
                                                                     (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
Article 30 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not
applying where a Member State prohibits by legislation any
sale which yields only a very low profit margin.
(') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        of 11 August 1995
                      of 11 August 1995                             in Case C-92/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
in Case C-80/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the        Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Secretary of State for
Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ): G. H. E. J. Wielockx v.          Social Security, Chief Adjudication Officer v. Rose Graham
            Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen (*)                                             and Others ( l )
(Article 52 of the EC Treaty — Requirement of equal                  (Equality between men and women — Invalidity benefits —
        treatment — Tax on non-residents ' income)                                    Link with pensionable age)
                          ( 95/C 268/16 )                                                      ( 95/C 268/17 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                   In Case C-92/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ),
In Case C-80/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of       London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch               before that court between Secretary of State for Social
( Regional Court of Appeal, 's-Hertogenbosch ) for a                 Security, Chief Adjudication Officer and Rose Graham,
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/9
Mary Connell and Margaret Nicholas on the interpretation               persons and to members of their families moving within the
of Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of              Community, as amended and updated by Council
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, p . 6 ), and
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46a of that Regulation, as amended by
matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , p . 24 ) — the Court          Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ( OJ No L 136 , p . 7 )
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler                     — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P. Jann,
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur )
C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                 and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 ,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              in which it rules :
11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                       a retirement pension granted under the legislation of one
where, pursuant to Article 7 ( 1 ) (a) of Council Directive            Member State, on the basis of periods of insurance
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive                        personally completed in that State by the person concerned,
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men             and a retirement pension obtained under the legislation of
and women in matters ofsocial security, a Member State has             another Member State by that person as a divorcee, on the
set the pensionable age for women at 60 and that for men at            basis of periods of insurance completed by that person's
65, that provision also allows it, first, to provide that the          former spouse, are not benefits of the same kind within the
rate of invalidity pension payable to persons becoming                 meaning of Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
incapacitated for work before they reach pensionable age is            of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
to be limited to the actual rate of retirement pension from            security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
the age of 60 in the case of women and from the age of 65 in           persons and to members of their families moving within the
the case of men and, second, to reserve entitlement to                 Community, as amended and updated by Council
invalidity allowance, paid in addition to invalidity pension,          Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, and
to those persons who are aged under 55, in the case of                 Articles 12 (2) and 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , as
women, and under 60, in the case of men, at the time when              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
they first become incapacitated for work .                             30 April 1992 .
 (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                     (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
 in Case C-98/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen ): Christel Schmidt v.                      in   Case   C-240/94 : Commission of the            European
                 Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( ] )                                        Communities v. Ireland (*)
  (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security —                      (Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of
 National rules against overlapping — Benefits of the same              Directives 89/336/EEC and 92/31/EEC — Electromagnetic
                                 kind)                                                            compatibility)
                            ( 95/C 268/18 )                                                       ( 95/C 268/ 19 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                        (Language of the case: English)
  In Case C-98/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         In    Case   C-240/94 :      Commission    of the   European
  the EC Treaty by the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen                        Communities (agents: Thomas F. Cusack and David
  ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Mclntyre) against Ireland ( agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
  pending before that court between Christel Schmidt and                 application for a declaration that, by omitting to bring into
  Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen on the interpretation of                   force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46 of Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/71 of            necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of
  the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social               3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
  security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                 Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility


title: Case T-748/15: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/38

         Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
   (Case T-748/15) (1)

   (2017/C 300/48)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2001 in Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main proceedings)

text:
C 84/58                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                        S. Rating) — application for interim measures consisting of,
                       8 November 2001                                  first, suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                        14 August 2001 refusing to allow the applicant access
in Case T-65/96: Kish Glass & Co. Ltd v Commission of                   to certain documents concerning the abandonment of the
                the European Communities (1)                            procedure brought against other banks in case COMP/
                                                                        E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro zone
                                                                        currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure under
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for
                                                                        Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant — the
      the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyer’s fees)
                                                                        President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                        5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-65/96 DEP, Kish Glass & Co. Ltd, established in
Dublin (Ireland), represented by M. Byrne, Solicitor, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (agents: R. Lyal, R. Caudwell and
B. Doherty), supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd,
established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United Kingdom),
represented by J. Kallaugher, Solicitor, A. Weitbrecht, and
M. Hansen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg:          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Application for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by                                              INSTANCE
the applicant to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom,
pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                                of 5 December 2001
T-65/96 Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges, Registrar:     in Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG v Commission of
J. Palacio González, Administrator, has made an order on                                  the European Communities
8 November 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Kish Glass & Co. Ltd
                                                                        certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main
to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd is fixed at
                                                                                proceedings)
BEF 1 200 000.
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (2002/C 84/109)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                            In Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG, established in Frank-
                           INSTANCE                                     furt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky and
                                                                        B.M. Maassen, lawyers, v Commission of the European Com-
                     of 5 December 2001                                 munities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for interim measures
                                                                        consisting of, first, suspension of operation of the Com-
in Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG v Commission of the                    mission’s decision of 17 August 2001 refusing to allow
                    European Communities                                the applicant access to certain documents concerning the
                                                                        abandonment of the procedure brought against other banks in
                                                                        case COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro
(Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to             zone currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure
certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main             under Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant
                           proceedings)                                 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                        on 5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/108)
                  (Language of the case: German)                        1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG, established in Frankfurt am
Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 May 1997 in Case C-233/94: Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union supported by Commission of the European Communities (Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of subsidiarity - Proportionality - Consumer protection - Supervision by the home Member State)

text:
 12 . 7. 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 212/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                          costs,
                       of 13 May 1997
in Case C-233/94: Federal Republic of Germany v.
European Parliament and Council of the European                       3 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          to bear its own costs.
Union supported by Commission of the European
                       Communities f 1 )
                                                                      O OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
(Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes — Legal basis —
Obligation to state reasons — Principle of subsidiarity —
Proportionality — Consumer protection — Supervision by
                   the home Member State)
                         ( 97/C 212/01
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: German)                                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-69/94: French Republic v. Commission of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                                     European Communities (')
                                                                      (Milk — Additional levy scheme — Detailed rules —
In Case C-233/94 : Federal Republic of Germany (Agents :                  Decision 93/673/EC — Powers of the Commission)
Bernd Kloke and Hans-Jörg Niemeyer ) v. European                                                ( 97/C 212/02 )
Parliament (Agent: Johann Schoo ) and Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jill Aussant, Klaus Borchers and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Jan-Peter Hix) supported by Commission of the European
Union ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Ulrich Wölker )
— application for annulment of Directive 94/1 9/EC of the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994                          published in the European Court Reports)
on deposit-guarantee schemes ( OJ No L 135 , 31 . 5 . 1994,
p. 5 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L.           In Case C-69/94 : French Republic ( Agents: Edwige
Murray and L. Sevón, (Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.                Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi ) v. Commission of the
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                     European Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rozet ) —
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur),           application for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;                  673/EC of 10 December 1993 fixing the flat-rate
Advocate-General : P. Leger; H. A. Rühl, Principal                   reduction to advances on the entry of agricultural
Administrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             expenditure in the accounts in the event of non
13 May 1997, in which it:                                            compliance with the provisions relating to the forwarding
                                                                     of the annual questionnaire on the application of the
                                                                     arrangements for additional levies in the milk sector
1 . dimisses the application;                                        introduced by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 ( OJ


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/54

         Removal from the Register of Case T-305/99 (1)

   (2004/C 300/106)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 5 October 2004, the President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-305/99, OK Nederland B.V., supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-377/17: Action brought on 15 June 2017 — SQ v EIB

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/48

         Action brought on 15 June 2017 — SQ v EIB
   (Case T-377/17)
   (2017/C 277/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SQ (represented by: N. Cambonie and P. Walter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the contested decision in so far as the President incorrectly concludes therein, first, that the practices implemented by the Director for Communication in respect of the applicant, which are referred to in paragraphs 20 to 24, 25, 31, 34, 46, 50 and 51 of the report, did not constitute psychological harassment, second, that there was no need to initiate disciplinary proceedings against that Director and, third, that the contested decision finding that the applicant had been subjected to psychological harassment must remain strictly confidential;

               —

               order the EIB to pay her compensation because of (i) the non-material damage which she suffered as a result of the psychological harassment by the Director for Communication confirmed in the contested decision and award her EUR 121 992 (one hundred and twenty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two euros) in that regard, (ii) the non-material damage which she suffered, and which can be separated from the illegality on which the partial annulment of the contested decision is based, and award her EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard, and (iii) the non-material damage resulting from, first, the breach by the Director-General for Personnel of the independence of the reporting procedure conducted by the Compliance Officer and, second, the intimidation of the applicant or the threat of retaliation made by the Director-General for Personnel, and award the applicant EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment as regards the categorisation of some of the practices complained of by the applicant by which the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 20 March 2017 (‘the contested decision’) is vitiated. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging errors of law in the application of the requirement that acts of psychological harassment must be repetitive;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging manifest errors of assessment resulting from the fact that some of the practices complained of were objectively such as to damage self-confidence and self-esteem.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors connected with a failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First and main part, alleging an error of law;

                           —

                           Second part, raised in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment and/or infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment as regards the obligation imposed on the applicant to keep confidential the contested decision finding that she had been subjected to psychological harassment by the Director for Communication.


title: Case C-212/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) by order of that court of 8 April 2004 in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) by order of that court of 8 April 2004 in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos
   (Case C-212/04)
   (2004/C 179/17)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis of 8 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos on the following questions:

               1.

               Must a national court – as far as possible – interpret its domestic law in accordance with a directive which was transposed belatedly into its national legal system from (a) the time when the directive entered into force, or (b) the time when the time-limit for transposing it into national law passed without transposition being effected, or (c) the time when the national measure implementing it entered into force?

               2.

               Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), mean that, in addition to reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the fact solely and simply that the conclusion of a fixed-term contract is required by a provision of law or secondary legislation constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts?

               3.

               May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999) L175, p. 43), be interpreted to the effect that national provisions which lay down that fixed-term employment contracts or relationships are to be regarded as successive only if a period of at most 20 working days separates them [must be disapplied] and, further, that the presumption introduced in favour of the worker that successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships should be recognised as of unlimited duration must be applied in the above circumstances?

               4.

               Is the prohibition, in Article 21 of Greek Law 2190/1994, of the conversion of successive fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, when those contracts are said to have been concluded for a fixed term to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but are aimed at covering its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2) in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43)?


title: Case C-410/10: Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-410/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/26
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case F-115/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Jacques Biwer and Others v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/66

         Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Jacques Biwer and Others v Commission
   (Case F-115/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/130
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jacques Biwer (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision to consider certain financial assistance from a Member State to students in higher education to be an allowance of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct this financial assistance from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of those students.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the PMO of Luxembourg, not notified to the applicants, by which certain financial assistance from the Luxembourg State, granted by CEDIES to students in higher education in Luxembourg or abroad, is henceforth to be considered to be an allowance of the same nature as those paid under Articles l, 2 and 3 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and, under Article 67(2), is to be deducted from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of those students;

               —

               annul the applicants’ monthly pay slips drawn up in accordance with the abovementioned decision from January 2010 and for the following months, drawing up new, amended pay slips as of January 2010.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-416/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
15.11.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/39
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                     the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-416/03)
                             (Case-414/03)
                           (2003/C 275/59)                                                         (2003/C 275/60)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
ties on 2 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, a member of the
                                                                           represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
—     declare that by allowing a contract for the disposal of                    Directive 2001/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      waste entered into by the local authority for Friesland to                 of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      be awarded without the provisions relating to giving                       into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      notice provided for in Article 8 of Directive 92/50 (1) in                 and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, or in any
      conjunction with Titles III to VI of that Directive being                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      complied with, the Federal Republic of Germany has                         Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                     that directive;
—     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the defendant admitted to the alleged infringement
and claimed that it intended to award the contract for the
disposal of waste in a manner that complies with EU public                 The period within which the directive had to be implemented
procurement law in future, it took no steps to terminate the               in the national legal order expired on 17 October 2002.
current contract which remains in force up to 13 December
2004.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.
Nor does it even claim that it is possible for the contract to be
terminated under German law. It merely points to the fact that
to terminate the contract early could lead to claims for
damages. However, the effectiveness of Community public
procurement law is greatly enhanced precisely where con-
tracting authorities do in appropriate cases have to contend
with the possibility of paying out damages.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Nor can the obligation to bring infringements of Community                                              Belgium
public procurement law to an end by terminating contracts
already entered into be called in question by Article 2(6) of
Directive 89/665 (2) which relates to reviews of possible                                          (Case C-417/03)
infringements of Community public procurement law. An
infringement of the Treaty can be regarded as having been                                          (2003/C 275/61)
brought to an end only where the Member State has acknowl-
edged the wrongfulness of the conduct and the infringement
has also been fully brought to an end.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(2) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                       on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-244/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 30 April 2013 — Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General, An Post

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 30 April 2013 — Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General, An Post
   (Case C-244/13)
   2013/C 189/24
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi

      Defendants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General, An Post

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can it be said that the spouse of an EU national who was not at the time himself a national of a Member State has ‘legally resided with the Union citizen in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years’ for the purposes of Article 16(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1), in circumstances where the couple had married in May 1999, where a right of residency was granted in October 1999 and where by early 2002 at the absolute latest the parties had agreed to live apart and where both spouses had commenced residing with entirely different partners by late 2002?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative and bearing in mind that the third country national claiming a right to permanent residence pursuant to Article 16(2) based on five years continuous residence prior to April 2006 must also show that his or her residency was in compliance with, inter alia, the requirements of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 (2), does the fact that during the currency of that putative five year period the EU national left the family home and the third country national then commenced to reside with another individual in a new family home which was not supplied or provided for by (erstwhile) the EU national spouse mean that the requirements of Article 10(3) of Regulation 1612/68 are not thereby satisfied?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative and the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, then for the purposes of assessing whether a Member State has wrongfully transposed or otherwise failed properly to apply the requirements of Article 16(2) of the 2004 Directive, is the fact that the national court hearing an action for damages for breach of Union law has found it necessary to make a reference on the substantive question of the plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent residence is itself a factor to which that court can have regard in determining whether the breach of Union law was an obvious one?

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

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
   OJ L 257, p. 2